HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-01783
'- .
ABF Freight Systems Inc.
vs
Chauffers Teamsters and Helpers,
Local Union No. 776 of the
Brotherhood of Teamsters and
Thomas B. Griffith, President,
John and Jane Does Individually
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-1783 Equity Term
Order of Court
Audrey G. Adams, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 4.10 o'clock P.M.. E.D.S.T.
she served a true copy of Order of Court. in the above entitled
action upon the within named defendants, to wit. Chauffers Teamsters
and Helpers Local union No. 776 of the Brotherhood of Teamsters
and Thomas B. Griffith President, John and Jane Does Individually
by making known unto Ronald T. Tomasko. Attorney for Chauffers
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 776 of the Brotherhood
of Teamsters and Thomas B. Griffith President, John and Jane
Does Individually at Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and attested copies of
the same. (Acceptance of Service form is hereto attached.)
Barry J."Horn, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5.03 o'clock P.M.. E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled action
upon the Light Pole Route 11 Entrance Carlisle Pike, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Barry J. Horn. Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law. says on April 8,'1994 at 4.53 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T., he
posted a true copy of Order of Court in the above entitled action
upon the Strike Hut, Caroline Way. Carlisle. Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
Barry J. Horn. Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5.00 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled
aclion at Appalachian Trial Inn 2nd Floor Meeting Room, Carlisle,
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
Timothy Reitz. Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5120 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court in the above entitled
action upon Light Pole at ABP Freight System Inc. at 1200 St. Johns
Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Harry King :, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April II. 1994 at 5.15 o'clock P.M.. E.D.S.T..
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled
action at ABF' Gate in Lower Allen Township, 1200 St. John Drive,
Camp Hill. Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's Costs.
Docketing
Service
Surcharge
Posting
So answers.
~g..?~.~~~ ~
R. Th6mas~Kline, Sh~~
26.00
20.72
10.00
20.00
i6.72
by
1)/'1>" .....
Sworn and subscribed to before me
by
this ~~ day Of&I"Y 1994,A.D.
l .' '/. (.~., 2!::',.'::~h. (.1;"'1., .
i Prothonotary"
DE;lpu
t;x:~ Tim~t~~' R:lt-:- 'D~~uty
, "
. .
b~~;) t L
Deputy (:)l
Writ No. 94-1783 Equity Term
..,
-
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I accept service of the ORDER OF COURT
Chauffeurs Teamsters and Helpers Local Un10n No. 776 of' the
(on behalf o~rotherhood of Teamsters and Thomas B. Griffitlhd
President, John and Jane Does ndividually
certify that I am authorized to do so.)
April 8, 1994
Date
ttr
Agent
j-/z.YYIS bf.\) ) eLl 1'7 /0(2
,...
.,
ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
.
.
V.
.
.
CHAUFFERS, TEAMSTERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION
NO. 776 OF THE BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRESIDENT, JOHN
AND JANE DOES, INDIVIDUALLY,
Defendants
NO. 94-1783 EQUITY TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 1994, this matter
having been called this date on a petition by plaintiff, ABF
Freight system, Inc., seeking a preliminary injunction ancillary
to a complaint in equity, and the parties having reached an
agreement to the entry of a consent order, it is ordered that:
1. The defendant and their officers, agents,
employees and members, and those acting in concert with them, or
having notice of the Court's order, temporarily until hearing,
and perpetually thereafter are enjoined from:'
a. seizing, obstructing, or interfering in any way by
force or displays of force, by numbers, by threats, by acts of
intimidation or violence, or by any conduct that deprives any
such employee or other person of the free and complete access,
egress, or ingress by anyone from any of the facilities of the
plaintiff;
b. directly impeding, obstructing, hampering, or
interfering with the business or the operations of the
plaintiff;
c. directly interfering with the deliv~ries,
unloading, and dispatch of supplies, materials, and equipment to
and from plaintiff's facilities;
d. inducing or attempting to induce by any threats of
force or violence any customers, vendors, subcontractors or
employees of the plaintiff to not enter any of the plaintiff's
facilities;
e. interfering with, hindering or annoying any
employees, agents or representatives of the plaintiff who may
desire to enter or leave any of the facilities of the plaintiff
for any purpose, by force or displays of force, by numbers, by
threats, by acts of intimidation or violence, or by any conduct
that deprives any such employee or other person of the free
enjoyment of his legal rights or access to and from the
plaintiff's facilities;
f. having, causing, or permitting more than the
designated number of pickets at any time to be at or remain near
the entrances and exits of the plaintiff's facilities as
specified below:
(1) Carlisle/Middlesex Township:
a. Route 11 entrance - 20 pickets at anyone time,
with a maximum of 10 pickets on each side of the entrance at the
time of egress or ingress.
b. Carolina way entrance - 12 pickets at anyone
time.
(2) Lower Allen/Camp Hill - 12 pickets at anyone
time.
Such pickets shall remain off the property of the
plaintiff, be in motion, be equally spaced in a single line, and
to conduct themselves in such a manner as not to block the use
of the entrances or exits, for ingress or egress of any person
or vehicle desiring to enter and leave the same;
g. unlawfully trespassing or loitering in the
l'
j.'
.
~,
i,
I.
plaintiff's parking lot(s) or garage(s) or the vicinity thereof,
in furtherance of picketing and using the said parking lot(s)
and/or garage(s) for the purpose of intimidating any employee,
customer, vendor, representative, or agent of the plaintiff or
any other individual who may wish to enter any facility of the
plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff post a bond in the amount of $500.00
as security in this matter.
3. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this
complaint to determine that the decree of the Court is obeyed,
and
,",j
4. The Court will grant such other
, '----\
mone~'- damages, as the Court shal.l' deem a
including
. .
. .
u...>
.-..
Edgar
Kathryn Speaker MacNett, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Ronald Tomasko, Esquire
For Defendants
:prs
~
O"t
.
>-...
"'...
<",
u.,ri :J~
U:z:C';z:
-c\.oo'...
~:J~~
~. ,.- ", "..
to.1ln
'J ......Jz
..., &4. n:~r.
'-:!"'I~I.j
.....::;.2:C-
'::>
2;<>
~
.-4
I/'>
("I')
0:>
a:
"-
--=
..~;
...... -.. .-... : ',:: ~ii .
r~-',. . .-'--_ . _
.. . - ~._. . .......
"
COURT OF COMKOH PLBAS
COMBERLANIl COmrrY
COMKONWBAL'l'B OF PENNSYLVANIA
UF FREIGHT SYSTBM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CRAWPERS, TEAMSTERS AND
BBLPERS. LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF 'l'BB BRO'l'BBRBOOD OF
TEAMSTERS AND THODS B.
GRIFFI'l'B, PRESIDENT,
JOHN AND JANE DOES.
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCKBT NO. q l.J.- 1'7 9 ~
~ .::r~'V>>v
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 1994, the Plaintiff having
presented its Complaint seeking a Preliminary Injunction Without
Hearing against the Defendants, and it appearing to the Court
from the accompanying affidavit presented therewith and other
matters presented to the Court, that immediate and irreparable
loss and damage is resulting and will continue to result to the
Plaintiff and members of the general public before the matter can
be heard on the merits if this Preliminary Injunction Without
Hearing is not issued, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that a
Preliminary Injunction Without Hearing now issue, upon security
being entered by the Plaintiff in the sum of
Thousand
Dollars ($__,000.00), strictly enjoining and restraining the
above-captioned Defendants, as well as other parties acting in
concert with them, or having notice hereof from:
1. seizing, obstructing, or interfering in any way by
threats or otherwise with the free and complete access,
egress or ingress by anyone to, in, and from any of the
facilities of the Plaintiff;
2. directly or indirectly impeding, obstructing, hampering
or interfering with the business or operations of the
Plaintiff;
directly or indirectly interfering with the deliveries,
unloading and dispatch of supplies, materials, and
equipment to and from the Plaintiff;
inducing or attempting to induce by any threats of
force or violence any customers, subcontractors,
employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or
representatives of the Plaintiff or other persons to
not enter any of the facilities of the Plaintiff;
interfering with, hindering or annoying any employees,
agents, contractors, subcontractors, or representatives
of the Plaintiff or any persons who may desire to enter
or leave any of the facilities of Plaintiff, for any
purpose, by force or displays of force, by numbers, by
threats, by acts of intimidation or violence or by any
conduct that tends to deprive any such employee or
other person of the free enjoyment of his legal rights
or access to and from Plaintiff's facilities;
6. having, causing or permitting more than two (2) pickets
at anyone time to be at or remain near any entrance or
exit to any facility of the Plaintiff, such pickets to
remain off the property of said Plaintiff, to be in
motion, to be spaced in a single line at least ten (10)
feet apart, and to conduct themselves in such a manner
as not to block the use of the entrances or exits for
ingress or egress of any person or vehicle desiring to
enter or leave the same;
3.
4.
5.
7. unlawfully trespassing or loitering in, on, or around
the Plaintiff's parking lot(s) or garage(s) or the
vicinity thereof, in furtherance of picketing and using
the said parking lot(s) or garage(s) for the purpose of
intimidating any employee, customer, agent, contractor,
subcontractor, or representative of the Plaintiff who
may wish to enter any facility of the Plaintiff.
Copies of this Order, together with a copy of the Complaint
filed in this suit, shall be served forthwith on the Defendants,
and the Sheriff of Cumberland County and any duly-sworn law
enforcement officer of this Commonwealth is hereby authorized and
directed to enforce this Order without further Order of this
Court. Specifically, no additional Writ or Order of Enforcement
need be issued prior to enforcement hereof. The Sheriff may,
however, assess such reasonable charges for such enforcement as
are appropriate under law.
r
. .
j
;, ~
oj
I
J
~
i
t'
f
,
f
",
1
.
~
.
A hearing date on the Plaintiff's request for a Preliminary
Injunction is set for the
day of
, at
o'clock a.m./p.m. in Courtroom No. ____,
Pennsylvania.
This Court retains jurisdiction of this Complaint in order
to assure compliance by the Defendant and its officers,
employees, and members, and those acting in concert with them.
By the Court:
J.
HIKlO42:C:\WP5IIABFlORDER,DOCISMO
L
'.J
1 r
i".
3
'...J111
:l~ L ,
i 2 l! ~!: A
un!I'"
UP! i
U" ~ I ~
~ I ~
R
,
f
,
/~f c',
vl.f..'~ I
...
t
.
t
.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
CtlHBBRLAlfD COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA
ABP PREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIPP,
V.
CBAUPPBRS, TBAMSTERS AND
HELPBRS, LOCAL ONION NO. 776
OP TBB BROTBBRBOOD OP
TBAMSTERS AND THOMAS B.
GRIPPITH, PRESIDENT,
JOHN AND JANE DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DBPBNDANTS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCltBT NO. G4 - 1'78 3 ~:r~
MOTION POR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, above named by its undersigned counsel, moves the
Court as follows:
1. To issue a preliminary injunction restraining Defendant,
in accordance with the prayer of the Complaint and the Motion for
a Preliminary Injunction Without Hearing pending the final hearing
and determination of this cause.
2. The grounds for this Motion are more fully set forth in
the verified Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction Without
Hearing and evidence presented in support thereof, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
ker Nett, Esqufre
~. .;;:lJ;)
rrado, Esquire
BUCHAN INGERSOLL,
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third Street, Eighth Floor
P.O. Box 12023
Harrisburg, PA 17108-2023
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Counsel of ABF Freight System, Inc.
HB0042:C:\ WPS I IABFlPRELINI,MTN\SMO
:II !!! ,
IU~i ~
H~!lli
~P~I ~
.~ ~~ e
f Z
II
~
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
cmmBRLAND COUNTY
COMMONWBALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CBAUFFBRS, TBAMS'l'BRS AND
HELPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTHBRHOOD OF
TBAMS'l'BRS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRESIDENT,
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS.
I
I
I DOCltET NO. 9.,-1'183
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~d-:rMm-'-'
MOTION FOR HEARING
AND NOW, this
day of
19 _, the
Plaintiff moves the Court to set a hearing date for the
determination of the propriety of the issuance of a Preliminary
Injunction Without Hearing at the earliest convenience of this
Court.
DATE: April 8, 1994
HIKlO42:C:\ WPS I \ABFlHEARING.MTN\SMO
Respectfully submitted,
orrado, Esquire
BUC INGERSOLL,
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third Street, Eighth Floor
P.O. Box 12023
Harrisburg, PA 17108-2023
(717) 237-4808
Attorney for Plaintiff
ABF Freigh System, Inc.
:II !
I ~ n ;
u~hlE
sa"XI I
i P e
II
.
,
..
,,,'
.
.
COURT OF COMMON PLBAS
CCMBBRLAND COONTY
COMMONWBALTH OF PBNNSYLVANIA
ASF FRBIGBT SYSTBM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CHAtJFFBRS, TBAHSTBRS AND
HELPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTBBRBOOD OF
TBAMSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRBSIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANE DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY
DBFENDANTS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCltBT NO. 34- - J'783 ct":~~,,
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, ABF Freight System, Inc.
("ABF") by and through its undersigned attorneys, and submits the
following Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.
I. This Court Has Authoritv And Jurisdiction To Enioin The Acts
Alleqed In The Comolaint.
This court has authority and jurisdiction to enjoin the
acts complained of here under the Pennsylvania Labor Anti-
Injunction Act, the Act of June 2, 1937, P.L. 1198, as amended,
43 P.S. S206d(d). That Act provides that Pennsylvania courts
have jurisdiction to issue injunctions:
Where in the course of a labor dispute as herein
defined, an employee, or employees acting in
concert, or a labor organization, or the members,
officers, agents, or representatives of a labor
organization or anyone acting for such
organization, seize, hold, damage, or destroy the
plant, equipment, machinery, or other property of
the employer with the intention of compelling the
employer to accede to any demands, conditions, or
terms of employment, or for collective bargaining.
43 P.S. S206d(d). Although the Labor Anti-Injunction Act had
originally restricted the power of Pennsylvania courts to issue
injunctions in labor disputes, the 1939 amendments to the Act
clearly removed the formalities originally specified in the Act
and "completely restores to the courts of common pleas the
equitable powers exercised by them...for causes which fall within
the terms of the 1939 Amending Act." Carneaie-Illinois Steel
COrD. v. United Steelworkers, 353 Pa. 420, 428, 45 A.2d 857
(1946); ~, Ga;kowski v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 350
Pa. Super. 285, 296, 504 A.2d 840 (1986), rev'd on other grounds;
__pa.___, 530 A.2d 853 (1987); see also, Link-Belt Co. v. Local
Union No. 118 of American Fed'n of Technical Ena'rs., 415 Pa,
122, 202 A.2d 314 (1964) (specifically upholding Carneaie-
Illinois).
The Supreme Court of the United States and the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court have repeatedly held that "mass
picketing is illegal and that State Courts have power to restrain
such picketing." Westinahouse Elec. COrD. v. United Elec.. Radio
& Mach. Workers, 383 Pa. 297, 301, 118 A.2d 180 (1955); see also,
Fountain Hill Mills v. Amalaamated Clothina Workers Union, 393
Pa. 385, 143 A.2d 354 (1958); Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers
Union, 369 Pa. 359, 85 A.2d 851 (1952).
II. There Was A Seizure And Holdina Of Plaintiff's Facilities.
Takina The Instant Case Outside The Scone Of The
Pennsvlvania Labor Anti-In;unction Act.
The Labor Anti-Injunction Act's restrictions do not
apply, and an injunction OIay issue, when employees or a labor
organization "seize, hold, damage or destroy the plant . . . or
other property of the employer." Westinahouse Elec. COrD. v.
Int'l Union of Elec.. Radio. & Mach. Workers, 262 Pa, Super. 315,
396 A.2d 772 (1978) (seizure found in case where only five to six
pickets blocked entrances and exits) .
-2-
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that, in order
for property to be "seized" for the purposes of S 206(d), the
owner need merely be deprived of the use of the property. There
is no requirement that strikers take physical control and
possession of each and every part of the property or facility;
nor must strikers engage in a sitdown strike. As the Supreme
Court stated in Westinqhouse Elec. COrD. v. United Elec.. Radio &
Mach. Workers, 353 Pa. 446, 455, 46 A.2d 16 (1946):
If the owner be deprived of the use and enjoyment
of the property so that it becomes utterly
valueless to him it is effectively seized and held
whether the force employed for that purpose be
exerted within the building or immediately
without. The control of the entrances is the
control of the plant. Surely defendants would not
deny that, if 5, 10, 50 or 100 of their members
stood directly within the gates and prevented the
owners and their employees from entering, this
would constitute a seizure of the property within
the ordinary meaning of that word, and how is it
less a seizure and a holding if the same number of
persons, for the same purpose and with the same
effect, stand immediately in front of the gates
instead of behind them? Would defendants deny
that, if they locked and bolted all the entrance
doors and thereby prevented ingress and egress,
such action would constitute a seizure and holding
of the plant within the normal connotation of
those terms and therefore within the meaning of
the statute? But what difference is there between
such a method of seizure and that of holding the
gateways closed, not by mechanical devices, but by
a chain of human beings stretched across those
gateways and thereby even the more effectively
preventing access to the property and its use by
the rightful owner?..
(emphasis in original).
Indeed, a seizure and holding may occur when only one
gate to a plant is subjected to mass piCketing. As the Supreme
Court stated in Carneqie-Illinois, 353 Pa. at 430:
When this cause reached this court and the record
was before us, it then became our duty to decide
-3-
whether or not the facts showed that what the
defendants were doing constituted a "holding" or
"seizure" of the plant or any part of it. The
holding or seizure of even one gateway to the
plant entitled the plaintiff to the protection of
a court of equity just as fully as would the
seizure of the entire plant. When a "picket line"
become a picket fence it is time for government to
act. Collective coercion is not a legitimate
child of collective bargaining.
See also, Neshaminv Constructors. Inc. v. Philadelohia Blda. &
Constr. Trades Council, 303 Pa. Super. 420, 424, 449 A.2d 1389
(1982) .
It is equally clear that the number of pickets involved
is not significant as long as plaintiff is forcibly prevented
from the use of its property. "If there was only ~ picket and
if he succeeded in blocking ingress to the plant by a display of
force his act could be lawless and enjoinable." Westinahouse
Elec. Core., 353 Pa. at 461. (Maxey, C.J., concurring) (emphasis
in original) .
Force or violence is not a prerequisite to the issuance
of an injunction so long as there is a prevention of free access
to an employer's property by mass picketing. Westinahouse Elec.
Core., 383 Pa. at 300. Furthermore, a seizure and holding may
take place without an attempt to pass through a mass picket line.
In Westinahouse Elec. Core., 383 Pa. at 299-300, the Supreme
Court stated:
The chancellor ruled that "There was no testimony
indicating a testing of the situation . . . [no
evidence of] a sincere attempt to enter. . .".
Such ruling was obviously that there could be no
seizure or holding of property within the
amendment to the Labor Anti-Injunction Act unless
there was proved a sincere attempt to enter the
plant, which was prevented by mass picketing. The
court was of opinion that to establish that mass
picketing was intended to be an effective
-4-
r""~"~'1, ;< ~.~~;y_
obstructing or blocking of passage into and from
the plant, a test should have been made by an
attempt to pass through such mass picket line.
Such ruling was obviously in error and must be
reversed.
See also, Neshaminv Constructors, 303 Pa. Super. at 424, 449 A.2d
at 1391.
The evidence submitted, when viewed in light of the
foregoing decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
Superior Court, clearly establishes that this is not a case of
mere property damage incidentally caused by picketing, ~,
Solvent Mach. & Filter Svs.. Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 115, 343
Pa. Super. 505, 495 A.2d 579 (1985), nor of mere difficulty of
entry and egress caused by picketing, ~, Frankel-Warwick Ltd.
Partnershio v. Local 274. Hotel. Bartenders & Restaurant
Emolovees Union, 334 Pa. Super. 47, 482 A.2d 1073 (1984), but
instead an actual "seizure and holding" of plaintiff's facilities
for the purposes of the Labor Anti-Injunction Act.
III. Plaintiff's Motives In Seekina An Iniunction Are Immaterial.
Plaintiff's motive for seeking an injunction is
immaterial. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in
Westinahouse Elec. Co., 383 Pa. at 301-302:
The court below in the present case states in the
opinion: "We received the distinct impression
from the testimony that the Company was more
interested in impressing the Judge with the so-
called illegal behavior of the men than in getting
Supervisors into the plant; more interested in
legal rights that in labor relations; more
interested in breading the morale of the men and
the Union itself than in negotiating a contract."
That court should have been concerned exclusively
with the legal question of whether mass piCketing,
unaccompanied by violence, threats and
intimidation, is illegal. Where such action is
adjudged illegal, the good or bad motive of an
-5-
.....__......_~,~ -~.'--~-
employer in insisting upon the enforcement of the
legal principle is immaterial: ~ Cohen v.
Perrino, 355 Pa. 455. 460, 50 A.2d 348.
The Order of the court below is reversed, and the
record remanded with direction to issue and
injunction enjoining and restraining defendant
Union, its officers, representatives, agents and
members and all other persons acting in concert
with them (1) from preventing or attempting to
prevent, by mass picketing, intimidation or
coercion, any person or persons from entering or
leaving plaintiff's plants and properties and (2)
from in any other manner seizing or holding said
plants and properties.
IV. The preliminarv Iniunction Should Be Continued In Effect
Aqainst The Union As Well As The Other Named Defendants.
Plaintiff respectfully submits that by asserting the
right to picket plaintiff's facilities in furtherance of its
collective bargaining demands, the Union must, at the same time,
accept responsibility for the mass action of its picketing
members. In Milk Waqon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312
U.s. 287, 295 (1941), the United States Supreme Court held:
The Fourteenth Amendment still leaves the state
ample discretion in dealing with manifestations of
force in the settlement of industrial conflicts.
And in exercising its power a state is not to be
treated as though the technicalities of the laws
of agency were written into the Constitution. .
It is true of a union as of an employer that it
may be responsible for acts which it has not
expressly authorized or which might not be
attributable to it on strict application of the
rules of resoondeat suoerior.
In United States v. United Mine Workers, 77 F. Supp.
563, 566-567 (D.D.C. 1948), aff'd, 177 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1949),
cert. denied, 338 U.S. 871 (1949), the District Court provided
the rationale for holding a labor organization responsible for
the mass action of its members:
-6-
i
!~
The Court thinks the principle is this: that as
long as a union is functioning as a union it must
be held responsible for the mass action of its
members. It is perfectly obvious not only in
objective reasoning but because of experience that
men don't act collectively without leadership. . .
So that, in general, this Court announces a
principle of law. The Court has no means of
knowing whether higher courts will adopt the
principle or not, but the Court has no doubt about
its soundness, not any -- that a union that is
functioning must be held responsible for the mass
action of its members.
***
Oi course, if a union comes in and says "We have
lost our hold on our members; they have gone; John
Smith has executed a coup; he has taken them away
from us," and if they can show the Court by
legitimate testimony that this is true, they are
not guilty of contempt. But that is not the
situation here.
The Union and its President made no such claim.
They don't contend for one instant that this Union
isn't operating and functioning as a union, and
that its members are not controlled from
headquarters.
And so the Court has no difficulty in reaching a
conclusion.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that in order
to hold a labor organization liable in negligence for the strike-
related tortious acts of its members, plaintiff must show, by the
weight of the evidence, that the acts complained of were ordered,
authorized or ratified by the labor organization. LaZar v. RUR
Indus.. Inc., 337 Pa. Super. 445, 449, n.3, 487 A.2d 29, 31, n.3
(1985) .
However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in
Ga;kowski v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 515 Pa. 516, 530 A.2d 853
(1987) indicated that LaZar does not govern the availability of
injunctive relief against a labor organization in a case of mass
-7-
picketing. In Gaikowski, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated
that Section 8 of the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, 43 P.S. 5 206h
(Purdon 19641 -- requiring proof, by the weight of the evidence,
of actual participation in, actual authorization of, or
ratification after actual knowledge of unlawful acts by officers,
members or agents of a labor organization, in order to hold a
labor organization liable for such acts -- is inapplicable to
suits for injunctive relief under S206d(d). The Gaikowski Court
explained, 530 A.2d at 857, that an "injunction poses no threat
to the viability of a labor organization whereas damage awards
may quickly strangle an entity responsible for bargaining on
behalf of workers." The Court added, in words as applicable in
this case of mass picketing as that in the case of violence:
A union qua union can have no legitimate interest
in preventing an injunction against violence on
the picket line, whether or not it participated in
fomenting that violence. If it did, it is
properly a party. If it did not, it should
support an end to the violence as all good
citizens are required to do.
530 A.2d at 857.
In other words, the Labor Anti-Injunction Act requires
proof of authorization only where the plaintiff seeks money
damaaes. not iniunctive relief. The Union may attempt to rely on
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Carbon Fuel Co. v.
United Mine Workers, 444 U.S. 212 (1979). Contrary to the
instant case, Carbon Fuel applies to cases involving suits for
monev damaaes under Sections 301 and 303 of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 19 U.S.C. 55185, 187. As stated by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "There is nothing
in the logic of [the Carbon Fuel] holding that prevents the
-8-
-9-
application of the mass action theory on the local level."
Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers. Local 1702, 709
F.2d 882, 885 (4th Cir.); cert. den., 464 U.S. 993 (1983). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the
federal district courts in Pennsylvania have never extended
Carbon Fuel beyond its original context, however. ~, Feather
v. United Mine Workers, 711 F.2d 530 (3d Cir. 1983); ~
Scaffoldinq Co. v. Local 845 United Bhd. of Caroenters, 585 F.
Supp. 102 (E.D. Pa, 1984); Airco Sneer Carbon-Granhite v. Local
502. Int'l Union of Elec.. Radio & Mach. Workers, 494 F. Supp.
872 (w.O. Pa. 1980). As Judge Knox wrote in Airco S~eer Carbon-
Granhite, "We agree . . . that the mass action theory does not
survive Carbon Fuel, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has clearly
defined the limits of union liability under Section .3.Q.l." Airco
Sneer Carbon-Granhite, 494 F. Supp. at 876 (emphasis added).
V. Plaintiff Is Entitled To A preliminarv Iniunction Limitinq
The Number And The Activities Of The Pickets At Its
Facilities
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court long ago put to rest
question about an employer's right to injunctive relief in this
type of case. In Wortex Mills, 369 Pa. at 363-364, the Court
held:
In the light of the mass picketing, threats and
intimidation, it seems strange that anyone should
contend that a State Court is powerless to issue
an injunction. It is well to recall that a State
or other Sovereign has a paramount right and an
inescapable duty to maintain law and order, to
protect life, liberty and property and to enact
laws and police regulations for the protection and
preservation of the safety, health and welfare of
the people of the state or community.
" . , ,.;.:>ot~',~f!M!JYt,;~~
.-
. "
And, in Carneaie-Illinois, 353 Pa. at 429, the Court
emphatically stated:
Porcibly to deny an owner of property or his
agents and employees access to that property for
the purpose of protecting and maintaining it and
its equipment or for any other legitimate purpose
is in practical and legal effect a seizure or
holding of that property. Such a lawless seizure
of property no government worthy of the name will
tolerate or condone. The employment of hostile
force against persons and property is exclusively
a governmental function, and exercisable even by
the government only by due process of law. When
any individual or organization under whatsoever
name attempts to use force to gain his or its ends
they are attempting to usurp governmental
functions. This attempt unless promptly and
effectively restrained by legally constituted
authority leads to lawlessness, disorder and
anarchy, which is the very negation of all
government. The law cannot temporize with
lawlessness. The first dutv of aovernment is to
aovern, that is, to maintain law and order at all
hazards and regardless of expense; only by doing
this does it fulfill its legitimate function,
which is the protection of life, liberty and
property.
(Emphasis in original).
This is not an instance as in Giant Eaale United Food and
Commercial Workers Union v. Local Union No. 23, 425 Pa. Super.
Ct. 186, 624 A.2d 208 (1993), in which customers simply had
difficulty gaining access to an establishment. This is an
instance in which the Union's pickets effectively thwarted access
to the facility. This is an instance in which the Union controls
the entrance and denies access to the facility. ~ Indiana
Cobra. Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers. Local 23, 406
Pa. Super. 342, 542 A.2d 368 (1991). Further, the necessity for
intensive numbers of law enforcement officials at this location
jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Middlesex Township and surrounding municipalities.
-10-
,!
_". V' ",." ,.,,...,-......_~
VI. Plaintiff Reauests Onlv That Defendants Act Lawfully.
The relief sought by Plaintiff is not extraordinary.
Defendants have engaged in unlawful acts, and the evidence
indicates that they intend to continue such activity. No one can
properly object to an injunction merely prohibiting such unlawful
acts. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in Carneaie-
Illinois: "No law-abiding citizen objects to being officially
informed that he cannot act unlawfully. The injunction issued in
this case impinged on no one except persons acting unlawfully or
planning to act unlawfully. It offended no one who acknowledged
the supremacy of the law." 353 Pa, at 431.
ABF is entitled to injunctive relief under well-
established precedent in this Commonwealth. The Court should
issue a preliminary injunction limiting the number of pickets at
Carlisle facility and restraining those pickets from denying
access to the facility.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~t, Esquire
Corrado, Esquire
BUCHAN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Counsel for the Plaintiff
ABF Freight System, Inc.
Date: April 8, 1994
-11-
r.o . .."'7-~_.. ,'---""""~,,_.~., _..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, a copy of the above
and foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Injunction was
served upon the following:
Hand Delivery
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Thomas B. Griffith, President
Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers
Local 776
2552 Jefferson Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire
Suite 100, 800 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
First Class Mail
First Class Mail
Respectfully submitted,
~~ 7Z.~
Susan M. Giblin, Secretary to
Kathy Speaker MacNett, Esquire
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: April 8, 1994
,
i
'i,
!
f
\
,
;~
(
!
,
J
tl
94-1'1 g ~ ~..:r-fM.1'V
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further
notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money
or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
CUmberland County Lawyer Referral Service
Court Administrator
......\.
r-
.....
'"
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
co
Phone: (717) 240-6200
;;~J.: ~ r: J
. .. ".
.-1.-,,1': .
~~ t""J ~..;. :~1
~- - ;r r,
I.L' _.rYl 5::
~~.
-<:;
to
.=
Vl
~
u:>
~
.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA
ABP PREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIPP,
V.
CHAUFPERS, TEAMSTERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OP THE BROTHERHOOD OP
TEAMSTERS AND THOMAS B.
GRIPPITH, PRESIDENT,
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEPENDANTS.
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.. ':t. 'I.
DOCKET NO. r; 4- ~ I 7 83 D"'<r ~
COMPLAINT
To The Honorable, The Judges of Said Court:
ABF Freight System, Inc. (hereinafter "ABF"), by and through
its attorney, Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corporation,
complains of the Defendants and says:
1. The Plaintiff, ABF, a corporation organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, is
registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is
doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has
facilities in various locations throughout the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, including one in Middlesex Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, located at 2001 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013 ("Carlisle Facility").
2. ABF is engaged in the business of trucking and common
carriage of general commodities at its facility in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, and other facilities.
3. The Defendant, Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers, Local
Union No. 776 of the Brotherhood of Teamsters (herein referred to
as "Local 776") and Thomas B. Griffith, President of Local 776,
is an unincorporated labor association having its principal
.
.
.
office at 2552 Jefferson Street, in Harrisburg, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania 17110-2519, and regularly conducts union business in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Cumberland and
represents approximately six hundred forty-two (642) workers
employed by ABF at its Carlisle facility.
4. The Defendant, Thomas B. Griffith, president of Local
Union No. 776, maintains a business address at 2552 Jefferson
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-2519.
5. In addition to the aforesaid Defendants, there are
engaged by and acting for and on behalf of and for the benefit
and at the instance and direction of the said Defendants, certain
and various other persons whom the Plaintiff is presently unable
to identify by name, who have been and who are presently
participating in the acts and in the course of conduct
hereinafter complained in conjunction, concert and conspiracy
with the aforesaid Defendants and as such are named and joined as
"John and Jane Does."
6. In January, 1994, representatives of trucking
companies, including ABF, began discussions to negotiate a new
National Master Freight Agreement, a nationwide collective
bargaining agreement. In addition, negotiations commenced for a
Central Pennsylvania Supplement ("Supplement"), which would
cover, among others, the six hundred forty-two (642) employees
employed by ABF at Carlisle. Since that time, representatives of
Central Pennsylvania Negotiation Committee and Local 776 have met
on numerous occasions for the purpose of negotiating the
Supplement. These negotiations have been unsuccessful.
-2-
7. The National Master Freight Agreement expired at
midnight on March 31, 1994. By agreement of the parties, an
extension was in place from April 1, 1994 through AprilS, 1994.
Commencing on or about April 6, 1994, at or about 12:01 a.m., the
Defendant Local 776 and various members, adherents or supporters
of the above-named Defendant walked off their jobs and went on
strike against ABF, and did immediately commence picketing ABF's
Carlisle facility at 2001 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013.
8. On or about April 6, 1994, at or about 12:01 a.m., the
Defendant Local 776 and various members, adherents and supporters
of the said Defendant did commence to picket in such a fashion
that it was impossible for certain vehicles to enter or leave the
Plaintiff's facilities at Carlisle. The Defendants have at all
times maintained picketing as follows:
a. The massing of up to forty (40) pickets;
b. Sufficient number of pickets to prevent vehicles
from crossing the picket line to enter the ABF
facility to deliver of pick up commodities,
including at least one (1) shipment of frozen
biological specimens; and,
c. Sufficient number of pickets to prevent a Roberts
Express truck and other vehicles from entering the
facility on or about April 6 or 7, 1994.
9. On or about April 7, 1994, it became necessary to
obtain the assistance of police from Middlesex Township and
neighboring municipalities to enable vehicles to cross the picket
line. The concentrated use of the law enforcement personnel at
-3-
,- -
the ABF facility to respond to the labor dispute deprives the
communities they otherwise serve of their protection, and
threatens the health, safety and welfare of citizens in Middlesex
and surrounding municipalities.
10. By these unlawful acts, the Defendants have deprived
the Plaintiff, its officers, executives, agents, employees and
the persons, of the right of ingress and egress to and from the
facilities of Carlisle, and have by coercion and intimidation
interfered with and obstructed their right and lawful attempts to
enter the said facilities to perform lawful activities.
11. By such means, the Defendants have prevented the
Plaintiff from:
a. Conducting its business, conserving its property
and carrying on those lawful, essential and
necessary activities;
b. Providing for the protection and maintenance of
its equipment, machinery and supplies.
12. The Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with Defendants, have
continued and persisted in their unlawful conduct and have
threatened to continue to pursue their course of intimidation and
coercion as averred above.
13. The Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with Defendants, have
advised and threatened that they will carry out and pursue such
course of intimidation and coercion that inevitably will cause
further substantial and irreparable damage and injury to the
business and property of the Plaintiff unless restrained by law.
-4-
14. The Defendants and those associated with them under
their direction and authority are persons of limited means and
have no financial resources that would enable the Plaintiff to
recover from the Defendants and those associated with them, the
losses that their unlawful and malicious conduct and acts impose
and will continue to impose upon the Plaintiff.
15. Because of the continuing unlawful and malicious
conduct of the Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with them, and because of
the inability of the local police to control the situation, the
situation is so serious and urgent as to require the issuance of
a preliminary injunction without hearing.
16. Because of the substantial and irreparable injury that
is being caused by the unlawful acts of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
preliminary injunction to restore to it the lawful use of its
property, the right to employ in and about its business those
persons who desire to work for that purpose and the right to
continue the operation of its business unhindered and
uninterrupted by the unlawful and malicious acts of Defendants.
17. Counsel for the Plaintiff has notified the principal
office of Defendant Local 776 and the office of Defendants' legal
counsel of Plaintiff's intention to request a preliminary
injunction without hearing and will advise said offices of the
time of the hearing with the Court on Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction. A statement supporting the notification
appears as Appendix 1, hereto, and is incorporated by reference
herein.
-5-
.-
I:.
...........'..."
18. The Plaintiff requests the Court:
a. To enjoin the Defendants and their officers,
agents, employees and members, and those acting in
concert with them, or having notice of the Court's
Order, temporarily until hearing, and perpetually
thereafter from:
1. seizing, obstructing or interfering in any
way by threats or otherwise with the free and
complete access, egress or ingress by anyone
from any of the facilities of the Plaintiff;
2. directly or indirectly impeding, obstructing,
hampering or interfering with the business or
operations of the Plaintiff;
3. directly or indirectly interfering with the
deliveries, unloading and dispatch of
supplies, materials and equipment to and from
Plaintiff's facilities;
4. inducing or attempting to induce by any
threats of force or violence any customers,
subcontractors or employees of the Plaintiff
to not enter any of Plaintiff's facilities;
s. interfering with, hindering or annoying any
employees, agents or representatives of the
Plaintiff who may desire to enter or leave
any of the facilities of the Plaintiff for
any purpose, by force or displays of force,
by numbers, by threats, by acts of
intimidation or violence or by any conduct
-6-
that tends to deprive any such employee or
other person of the free enjoyment of his
legal rights or access to and from the
Plaintiff's facilities;
6. having, causing or permitting more than two
(2) pickets at any time to be at or remain
near any entrance or exit of any facility of
the Plaintiff, such pickets to remain off the
property of the Plaintiff, to be in motion,
to be spaced in a single line at least ten
(10) feet apart, and to conduct themselves in
such a manner as not to block the use of the
entrances or exits for ingress or egress of
any person or vehicle desiring to enter or
leave the same;
7. unlawfully trespassing or loitering in the
Plaintiff's parking lot(s) or garage(s) or
the vicinity thereof, in furtherance of
picketing and using the said parking lot(s)
and/or garage(s) for the purpose of
intimidating any employee, customer,
representative or agent of ABF or any other
individual who may wish to enter any facility
of the Plaintiff.
b. To set a date for hearing, within five (5) days of
the filing of this Complaint, to consider
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction.
-7-
c. Upon full and fair hearing to grant Plaintiff's
request for a permanent injunction against the
aforesaid activities.
d. To retain jurisdiction of this complaint to
determine that the decree of the Court is obeyed,
and
e. To grant such other relief, including money
damages, as the Court shall deem appropriate.
~~~~t, Esquire
Corrado, Esquire
BUC INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: April 8, 1994
HIKlO42:C:IWP5IIABFlCOMPLAlNT,DOCISMO - 8-
NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION
POR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT BBAR.ING
The Defendants named in this suit were notified by telegram
today at approximately 10:00 o'clock p.m. on April 7, 1994, that
this application for Preliminary Injunction Without Hearing would
be made to this Honorable Court at 8:30 o'clock a.m. tomorrow,
April 8, 1994, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
Respectfully submitted,
~squire
Corrado, Esquire
BUC INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: April 8, 1994
APPENDIX 1
f :' : ~
'. .._~._ ~~~).?ii7r~::
Ii
VBRIPICATION
I, Sr~-t#&--yJ IAJAl:n:-~ , depose and say that I am the
t.n~A~ for ABF Freight System, Inc., the Plaintiff in the
foregoing matter, and am duly authorized to make this Affidavit
on its behalf; that the averments of fact contained in the
foregoing Complaint, so far as made of my own knowledge, are true
and correct, and so far as they are based on information received
from others, I am reliably informed and believe them to be true
and correct. This Verification is made subject to 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
~~~~
/'
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
ctlMBBRLAND COUNTY
COMMONWBAL'rH OP PBNNSYLVANIA
ABF FRBIGB'l' SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFP,
V.
CHAtJPFBRS, 'l'BAMS'l'BRS AND
BBLPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF
'l'BAMS'l'BRS AND 'rHOHAS B.
GRIPFI'rH. PRBSIDENT,
JOHN AND JANE DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DBPENDANTS.
I
I
I DOCltBT NO. Cf 4 - I '183
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~d-.:r~
ORDBR OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~~ day of ~~1;P
Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
1. The Preliminary Injunction Without Hearing requested by
, 199.:J, it is
the Plaintiff is refused.
2. That a hearing is set for G.p,,;JJ 'if , /qq 'I at
o'clock ~.m. at (14t.U-LM,,--..~, '1J,., on the Plaintiff's
application for a Preliminary Injunction.
HIKlO42:C:\ WPS I \ABFlORDERn,DOC\SMO
J.
-:r
en>
-
1'""""\
1
J:fl
<;:l ,
~...
::0= ",-
...-c >....f:
~ ~~f~
a') .", .~, '""
~ ~
\tI-
c Ii,
; ~
~ ~
i\:1!r
6~
,'il
CD
.' ,
,d,j
~\
,. ...'! ~
<lC
...
c::<
~;Z:
.
'> I.t)
)
~
I
t:'
:j ~ ~ g
lun ~
I~~mil~
~~.. p ~
.!! 3! ~
It z ~
II
.
Q4" 1'1g-3
~ .::r-'VlYV
i
,
i
!
.... ..'
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further
notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other
claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money
or property or other rights important to you.
i
.
j
~,
Phone: (717) 240-6200
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
CUmberland County Lawyer Referral Service
Court Administrator
CUmberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
\:~
COUR.T 01' COHMON PLBAS
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY
COHMONWBALTH 01' PENNSYLVANIA
t;
l'
AJlI' I'RBIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFI' ,
V.
CBAUl'I'BRS, TBAHSTBRS AND
BBLPBRS, LOCAL WION NO. 776
01' TBB BROTBBRBOOD OF
TBAHSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRII'I'ITH, PRBSIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DBI'BNDANTS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCltET NO. q~- 11&-3
~~
COMPLAINT
To The Honorable, The Judges of Said Court:
ABF Freight System, Inc. (hereinafter "ABF"), by and through
its attorney, Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corporation,
complains of the Defendants and says:
1. The Plaintiff, ABF, a corporation organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, is
registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is
doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has
facilities in various locations throughout the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, including one in Middlesex Township, CUmberland
County, Pennsylvania, located at 2001 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013 ("Carlisle Facility").
2. ABF is engaged in the business of trucking and common
carriage of general commodities at its facility in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, and other facilities.
3. The Defendant, Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers, Local
Union No. 776 of the Brotherhood of Teamsters (herein referred to
as "Local 776") and Thomas B. Griffith, President of Local 776,
is an unincorporated labor association having its principal
, ;..
office at 2552 Jefferson Street, in Harrisburg, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania 17110-2519, and regularly conducts union business in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of CUmberland and
represents approximately six hundred forty-two (642) workers
employed by ABF at its Carlisle facility.
4. T~e Defendant, Thomas B. Griffith, President of Local
Union No. 776, maintains a business address at 2552 Jefferson
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-2519.
5. In addition to the aforesaid Defendants, there are
engaged by and acting for and on behalf of and for the benefit
and at the instance and direction of the said Defendants, certain
and various other persons whom the Plaintiff is presently unable
to identify by name, who have been and who are presently
participating in the acts and in the course of conduct
hereinafter complained in conjunction, concert and conspiracy
with the aforesaid Defendants and as such are named and joined as
"John and Jane Does."
6. In January, 1994, representatives of trucking
companies, including ABF, began discussions to negotiate a new
National Master Freight Agreement, a nationwide collective
bargaining agreement. In addition, negotiations commenced for a
Central Pennsylvania Supplement ("Supplement"), which would
cover, among others, the six hundred forty-two (642) employees
employed by ABF at Carlisle. Since that time, representatives of
Central Pennsylvania Negotiation Committee and Local 776 have met
on numerous occasions for the purpose of negotiating the
Supplement. These negotiations have been unsuccessful.
-2-
~ .
7. The National Master Freight Agreement expired at
midnight on March 31, 1994. By agreement of the parties, an
extension was in place from April 1, 1994 through April 5, 1994.
Commencing on or about April 6, 1994, at or about 12:01 a.m., the
Defendant Local 776 and various members, adherents or supporters
of the above-named Defendant walked off their jobs and went on
strike against ABF, and did immediately commence picketing ABF's
Carlisle facility at 2001 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013.
B. On or about April 6, 1994, at or about 12:01 a.m., the
Defendant Local 776 and various members, adherents and supporters
of the said Defendant did commence to picket in such a fashion
that it was impossible for certain vehicles to enter or leave the
Plaintiff's facilities at Carlisle. The Defendants have at all
times maintained picketing as follows:
a. The massing of up to forty (40) pickets;
. b. Sufficient number of pickets to prevent vehicles
from crossing the picket line to enter the ABF
facility to deliver of pick up commodities,
including at least one (1) shipment of frozen
biological specimens; and,
c. Sufficient number of pickets to prevent a Roberts
Express truck and other vehicles from entering the
facility on or about April 6 or 7, 1994.
9. On or about April 7, 1994, it became necessary to
obtain the assistance of police from Middlesex Township and
neighboring municipalities to enable vehicles to cross the picket
line. The concentrated use of the law enforcement personnel at
-3-
the ABF facility to respond to the labor dispute deprives the
communities they otherwise serve of their protection, and
threatens the health, safety and welfare of citizens in Middlesex
and surrounding municipalities.
10. By these unlawful acts, the Defendants have deprived
the Plaintiff, its officers, executives, agents, employees and
the persons, of the right of ingress and egress to and from the
facilities of CarliSle, and have by coercion and intimidation
interfered with and obstructed their right and lawful attempts to
enter the said facilities to perform lawful activities.
11. By such means, the Defendants have prevented the
Plaintiff from:
a. Conducting its business, conserving its property
and carrying on those lawful, essential and
necessary activities;
b. Providing for the protection and maintenance of
its equipment, machinery and supplies.
12. The Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with Defendants, have
continued and persisted in their unlawful conduct and have
threatened to continue to pursue their course of intimidation and
coercion as averred above.
13. The Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with Defendants, have
advised and threatened that they will carry out and pursue such
course of intimidation and coercion that inevitably will cause
further substantial and irreparable damage and injury to the
business and property of the Plaintiff unless restrained by law.
-4-
. '
t
~
14. The Defendants and those associated with them under
their direction and authority are persons of limited means and
have no financial resources that would enable the Plaintiff to
recover from the Defendants and those associated with them, the
losses that their unlawful and malicious conduct and acts impose
and will continue to impose upon the Plaintiff.
15. Because of the continuing unlawful and malicious
conduct of the Defendants and other persons acting under their
direction and authority and in concert with them, and because of
the inability of the local police to control the situation, the
situation is so serious and urgent as to require the issuance of
a preliminary injunction without hearing.
16. Because of the substantial and irreparable injury that
is being caused by the unlawful acts of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
preliminary injunction to restore to it the lawful use of its
property, the right to employ in and about its business those
persons who desire to work for that purpose and the right to
continue the operation of its business unhindered and
uninterrupted by the unlawful and malicious acts of Defendants.
17. Counsel for the Plaintiff has notified the principal
office of Defendant Local 776 and the office of Defendants' legal
counsel of Plaintiff's intention to request a preliminary
injunction without hearing and will advise said offices of the
time of the hearing with the Court on Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction. A statement supporting the notification
appears as Appendix 1, hereto, and is incorporated by reference
herein.
-5-
.' p~~~t~-tr:t~~~
...-
. "+\ ~
18. The Plaintiff requests the Court:
a. To enjoin the Defendants and their officers,
agents, employees and members, and those acting in
concert with them, or having notice of the Court's
Order, temporarily until hearing, and perpetually
thereafter from:
1. seizing, obstructing or interfering in any
way by threats or otherwise with the free and
complete access, egress or ingress by anyone
from any of the facilities of the Plaintiff;
2. directly or indirectly impeding, obstructing,
hampering or interfering with the business or
operations of the Plaintiff;
3. directly or indirectly interfering with the
deliveries, unloading and dispatch of
supplies, materials and equipment to and from
Plaintiff's facilities;
4. inducing or attempting to induce by any
threats of force or violence any customers,
subcontractors or employees of the Plaintiff
to not enter any of Plaintiff's facilities;
5. interfering with, hindering or annoying any
employees, agents or representatives of the
Plaintiff who may desire to enter or leave
any of the facilities of the Plaintiff for
any purpose, by force or displays of force,
by numbers, by threats, by acts of
intimidation or violence or by any conduct
-6-
that tends to deprive any such employee or
other person of the free enjoyment of his
legal rights or access to and from the
Plaintiff's facilities;
6. having, causing or permitting more than two
(2) pickets at any time to be at or remain
near any entrance or exit of any facility of
the Plaintiff, such pickets to remain off the
property of the Plaintiff, to be in motion,
to be spaced in a single line at least ten
(10) feet apart, and to conduct themselves in
such a manner as not to block the use of the
entrances or exits for ingress or egress of
any person or vehicle desiring to enter or
leave the same;
7. unlawfully trespassing or loitering in the
Plaintiff's parking lot(s) or garage(s) or
the vicinity thereof, in furtherance of
picketing and using the said parking lot(s)
and/or garage(s) for the purpose of
intimidating any employee, customer,
representative or agent of ABF or any other
individual who may wish to enter any facility
of the Plaintiff.
b. To set a date for hearing, within five (5) days of
the filing of this Complaint, to consider
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction.
-7-
c. Upon full and fair hearing to grant Plaintiff's
request for a permanent injunction against the
aforesaid activities.
d. To retain jurisdiction of this Complaint to
determine that the decree of the Court is obeyed,
and
e. To grant such other relief, including money
damages, as the Court shall deem appropriate.
er MacNett, Esquire
az...~e"~ ,
Corrado, Esquire
BUCHAN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: April 8, 1994
HB0042:C:\WPSIIABFlCOMPLAlNT.DOCISMO - 8 -
,_..".'_.,~,,..,,.,',-
.~.>-~. ,-.'~;~~~~
.,..-.,
NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT BBARING
The Defendants named in this suit were notified by telegram
today at approximately 10:00 o'clock p.m. on April 7, 1994, that
this application for Preliminary Injunction Without Hearing would
be made to this Honorable Court at 8:30 o'clock a.m. tomorrow,
April 8, 1994, in the Court of Common Pleas of CUmberland County,
Pennsylvania.
Respectfully submitted,
~r MacNett, Esquire
. c..:~J &~ .
Corrado, Esquire
BUCHAN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third St., Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: April 8, 1994
APPENDIX 1
"-.."
. .' ....._..- ..,......,,,:~-..,,."'-,\
'!"....,.
,. !4~:i"-~<{;;;\".:'i"f~'
VBRIFlCATION
I, ~r.(/Jk>J IA)J/l.rl':t2.5 , depose and say that I am the
....l!:MtJAt-'L for ABF Freight System, Inc., the Plaintiff in the
foregoing matter, and am duly authorized to make this Affidavit
on its behalf; that the averments of fact contained in the
foregoing Complaint, so far as made of my own knowledge, are true
and correct, and so far as they are based on information received
from others, I am reliably informed and believe them to be true
and correct. This Verification is made subject to 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
~ tV~~
,
COUR.T OF COHMON PLBAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABF FRBIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CBAUl'FBRS, TBAHSTERS AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTBBRBOOD 01'
TBAMSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRESIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOES,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFBNDANTS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOCltET NO. q'l - 11 b- 3
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, TO-WIT, this <('I- day of
l~~the foregoing bond is approved
J.
~.r~
,
COUR.T OF COHMON PLBAS
CUMBERLAND COUN"l'Y
COMMONWBALTH OF PBNNSYLVANIA
ABF PRBIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CBAUl'FBRS, TEAMSTERS AND
HBLPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTHBRBOOD OF
TBAMSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRESIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOES,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFBNDANTS.
I
I
I DOCKET NO.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q If - /'1 f{ 3
~...~:r~
Bmm
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that ABF Freight System, Inc. ,
is held and firmly bound unto the ~~~i~;l(~..~~'~;"'~"f ~:~;i~~ ('b;"~..hv.'l (h"C)1
bond in the sum of FI vc l-I-u^':"lYi<~:o
Dollars
($ St:>{;>. 00 ), lawful money of the United States of America, to
be paid to the United States of America, its attorneys or
assigns, to which payment well and truly be made, we do jointly
and severally bind ourselves, and the successors and assigns of
each of us by these presents.
SEALED
t\-~r\ \
T'-
with our seals and dated this ~ day of
, 1911. Whereas, Plaintiff has applied for a
Preliminary Injunction without a hearing against the Defendants,
as more particularly described in the said Complaint:
NOW, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that the
Plaintiff shall be liable to the Defendants for such costs and
damages, not exceeding the sum of
Dollars ($ 500 . 00
F,Ve HON7:>eL~
), as Defendants or any other person
may sustain by reason of the Preliminary Injunction without a
hearing if the Court finally decides that the Plaintiff is not
".."..- -.-.
entitled thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ST'q;AhV aJllcreT2S
and
their duly
_t\ID':' \
authorized agents
, 1!Rj-.
have caused this
~
on this ~ day of
undertaking by
)(~r ~B ~.
~rt1e' Ie ~
By
Title
B~.(""'''--
torn in-Fact
.,
~, .......
HB0042:C:\WPSIIABFlBOND.DOCISMO
2
:::;
~
fE
m
C")
-
~
'0
~
~
~ ~
~
~
'-<::)
~..
.."
~.:e
lU(')::,:,
U~C,...
1:"0<..):.
14, -:r.'O~'"
r-'l ...._i
J ~., .~f$
..;, . ;;- .L:".
.. .....
,:- 7r'--
'"
~~j '-"
~
U
~..~
~
Q:)
~
~
'~'..:. .'~,:..-;:-'. ~""'.,,.,,-.' ....-....,
.
JUN 16199~~
~
COUR.T 01' COHMON PLBAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COHMONWBALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
And now, this I?" day of June, 1994, all pleadings and
orders in the above captioned case are withdrawn with prejudice,
and the bond posted by ABF Freight System, Inc. in the above-
captioned case is ordered returned to the Plaintiff.
ABF FRBIGHT SYSTEM, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CBAUPFBRS, TBAMSTBRS AND
BBLPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTHERHOOD OF
TBAHSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRIFFITH, PRBSIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DBFENDANTS.
I
I
I DOCKET NO. 94-1783 Bquity Ter.m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ORDBR
By Order of the Court
4. rJ;.[
/
J.
.~
J
-::r
CI'") .~' >-
- :; ',;
:x::
0._
..0 .~
=
. .,
.,
",:' ~ .
'"
C=>
'"'
""
--,
. ,"
"
:j I ! ~ ~
lu' ~ ~
I~~!ill
iI .. x I ~
~ j5! ~
~ ~ ~
II
..,;;1;' ',',.
COUR.T 01' COHMON PLBAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COHMONWBALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABI' I'RBIGHT SYSTBH, INC.,
PLAINTII'F,
V.
CBAUl'FBRS, TBAMSTBRS AND
BBLPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTBBRHOOD OF
TBAHSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRII'I'ITH, PRBSIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOES,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFBNDANTS.
I
I
I DOCKET NO. 94-1783 Equity Term
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PETITION TO WITHDRAW PROCEBDINGS WITH PREJUDICE
AND RETURN BOND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
ABF Freight System, Inc. ("ABF"), by and through its
attorneys, Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corporation, hereby
moves this Court to allow withdrawal with prejudice of all
complaints, motions or other pleadings and orders, the above-
captioned proceeding, including the Order of Court of April 8,
1994, and in support thereof states:
A. Withdraw proceedinas With pre1udice.
1. The parties to the above captioned case were part of
nationwide negotiations that settled the national Teamsters
strike.
2. During the strike, ABF filed a number of petitions and
motions for relief at its Cumberland County facilities. These
.
'.
pleadings resulted in the entry of a Consent Order by this
Honorable Court on April 8, 1994.
3. No action was taken with regard to certain other
pleadings.
4. The national negotiators for both sides reached a
tentative Return to Work agreement to return the striking
Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers ("Teamsters") to work on
April 29, 1994.
5. Teamsters returned to work at ABF's Cumberland County
facilities in accordance with that Return to Work agreement.
6. The national Return to Work agreement included a
provision that required management of companies that were struck
by the Teamsters and the Teamsters to withdraw with prejudice all
litigation related to the strike. The provision stated:
"9. TNFINC [Teamsters National Freight Industry
Negotiating Committee] agrees to withdraw and/or have
dismissed with prejudice any and all court litigation
and/or charges filed with the National Labor Relations
Board ("NLRB") against TMI [Trucking Management, Inc.]
or any TMI carrier by TNFINC or any TNFINC-affiliated
Local Union relating to the negotiation of the
successor 1994-98 NMFA or arising from the strike that
began on April 6, 1994. TMI aqrees to withdraw and/or
have dismissed with oreiudice anv and all civil
litiqation and/or charges filed with the NLRB aqainst
TNFINC or anv TNFINC represented IBT-affiliated Local
-2-
,~..'
union or its members bv TMI or anv TMI carrier relating
to the negotiation of the successor 1994-98 NMFA or
arisina from the strike that beaan on April 6. 1994.
The dismissal or withdrawal of any court litigation or
NLRB charge, includes any cause of action which could
have been brought relating to the negotiation of the
successor 1994-98 NFA or arising from the strike that
began on April 6, 1994." (Emphasis added.)
7. ABF files this petition in accordance with the above
cited provision of the Return to Work Agreement.
8. The Teamsters have since voted to adopt the proposed
collective bargaining agreement ending the nationwide strike.
B. Return Bond.
9. ABF filed a cash bond of Five Hundred Dollars ($500)
with this Honorable Court on April 8, 1994, to fulfill
jurisdictional requirements associated with the entry of the
Consent Order by this Court.
10. Since the parties have resolved this matter, said bond
is no longer necessary.
WHEREFORE, ABF requests that the above-captioned proceeding,
including the Order of Court of April 8, 1994, be withdrawn with
-3-
.- . re-;,'th"'!~'~~
-
. , ~t;~'
prejudice, and that the cash bond of Five Hundred Dollars ($500)
be returned to ABF forthwith.
Respectfully submitted,
hy pe er MacNett, Esquire
C AN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P.O. Box 12023
Harrisburg, PA 17108-2023
Phone: (717) 237-4808
Date: June 9, 1994
-4-
flf~. ,,:~ :./ ilf,ijl
'._ t ",,~-"h,~,,_. ".._'
... -. ,..'~'.. , ,'.
COUR.T OF COHMON PLBAS
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY
COMMONWBALTH OF PBNNSYLVANIA
AJlI' I'RBIGHT SYSTBM, INC.,
PLAINTII'I' ,
V.
CBAUl'FBRS, TBAHSTBRS AND
BBLPBRS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776
OF TBB BROTBBRHOOD OF
TBAHSTBRS AND THOMAS B.
GRII'FITH, PRESIDBNT,
JOHN AND JANB DOBS,
INDIVIDUALLY,
DBI'BNDANTS.
I
I
I DOCKET NO. 94-1783 Bquity Term
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the
Petition to Withdraw with Prejudice were served upon the
following persons by First Class U. S. Mail this 9th day of June,
1994:
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Ira H. Weinstock, Esquire
Suite 100, 800 N. Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Respectfully submitted,
~
th Saker MacNett, Esquire
UCHANAN INGERSOLL
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
30 N. Third Street, Eighth Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 237-4808
,'.
:
,,"c, "
. ,"1~-:_~'~~.
'i~f -
'lit' '~~:r,'
. ........ ................~'..-..~
.',.' ..... '... .,. ,..>p.... .......~................_.-...~.... ....
...,.,.,..... ,~.
_....,....,~.. ....... .. .. .
ABF Freight., Systems Inc.
vs
Chauffers Teamsters and Helpers,
Local Union No. 776 of the
Brotherhood of Teamsters and
Thomas B. Griffith, President,
John and Jane Does Individually
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-1783 Equity Term
Order of Court
Audrey G. Adams, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 4110 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.
she served a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled
action upon the within named defendants, to wit. Chauffers Teamsters
and Helpers Local union No. 776 of the Brotherhood of Teamsters
and Thomas B. Griffith President, John and Jane Does Individually
by making known unto Ronald T. Tomasko, Attorney for Chauffers
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 776 of the Brotherhood
of Teamsters and Thomas 8. Griffith President, John and Jane ,
Does Individually at Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and attested copies of
the same. (Acceptance of Service form is hereto attached.)
8arry J."Horn, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5:03 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled action
upon the Light Pole Route 11 Entrance Carlisle Pike, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Barry J. Horn, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8,'1994 at 4:53 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T., he
posted a true copy of Order of Court in the above entitled action
upon the Strike Hut, Caroline Way, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
8arry J. Horn, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5:00 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled
action at Appalachian Trial Inn 2nd Floor Meeting Room, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Timothy Reitz, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April 8, 1994 at 5.20 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court in the above entitled
action upon Light Pole at ABF Freight System Inc. at 1200 St. Johns
Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
-Harry King,;, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says on April ll, 1994 at 5:15 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.,
he posted a true copy of Order of Court, in the above entitled
action at ABF Gate in Lower Allen Township, 1200 St. John Drive,
Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's
Docketing
Service
Surcharge
Pos ling
Costs:
So
answers:
~~"/' ~.
...-...-....."
V~r" ' ._.f .,~. " .
R. Th fuas Kline, Sh riff
26.00
20.72
10.00
20.00
76.72 Pd. by Atty. by
7-l4-94
Sworn and
,'I
by ~~~.'U<A__
~
.. .....-.(' "' ~
this /r~
'iuhscribed to before me
( 1
day of '-fl.1 .19!l4,A.D.
~f'll-<- Ct. nkU...., wfJ'7
r
---......-................
, '." . ..""'-'.A.... ~....................... ... ,<, ,.....'.4. .,....,... ~... '.' . ....... .
. ,',I
..
Deput
t.,,,
1
.........