In Uniroyal Case
Judge Delays Ruling
6-29-67 (handwritten)
A decision on whether Uniroyal, Inc. should be restrained by court order from resuming production at its strikebound Naugatuck Footwear Plant will not be rendered for at least a week.
Superior Court Judge Leo V. Gaffney said at the close of a hearing Wednesday on a petition by Local 45 of the United Rubber Workers Union for an injunction against the company, that his decision can be expected by the end of next week.
He has given counsel for the company and the union until Wednesday to file legal briefs.
Judge Gaffney said his ruling will follow soon after receipt of the briefs, probably not later than Friday.
He added, however, “The best decision of all would come from Cincinnati” where negotiators have been trying to agree on a new union contract since the strike began April 21.
“I’d like to see that decision first,” he said.
The union asked for the injunction last week when the company began production of samples of its new footwear designs, using non-union supervisory personnel.
At an appearance in court last Thursday when the union’s petition was filed, the company agreed to halt production until after completion of a hearing before Judge Gaffney.
Violation Claimed
Local 45 claims production of the samples constitutes a violation of an agreement signed by the parties April 18.
The agreement, which provides for orderly shutdown and maintenance of the plant while the strike is in progress, states in part that for the duration of the strike, the company will not perform any work normally done by union employes with non-union personnel.
Testimony on the issue was completed Wednesday, with presentation of the company’s case.
Most of the testimony centered on two main points: That the company will suffer “severe damage” if it is not permitted
(Cont’d On Page 2—Uniroyal)
to make samples for use by its salesmen in obtaining orders from retailers; and that the company maintains that the union violated the agreement first and rendered it void when in early May pickets blocked entrance gates and violence erupted between strikers and police.
To company representatives, Judge Gaffney posed the question, “Did you ever write a letter to any union officer to the effect that the agreement was no longer in effect”
In each instance, the answer was, “No.”
At several points along the way he indicated that damage the company might suffer was not at issue in the case. He said the central issue was whether the agreement had been violated.
Whenever counsel for either Uniroyal or Local 45 dwelled too long on what the jurist described as “side issues,” he admonished them to “get back on the track, which is whether or not this contract has been violated.”
Financial Loss
Thomas J. Nelligan, labor relations manager, testified that the company will suffer a “very severe financial loss” forcing a “reduction in production” unless it is permitted to produce samples for its salesmen to “take into the field” in August.
He said the samples to be produced, between 400 and 500 pairs a day, would be for the spring and summer season next year.
Nelligan said the samples are normally made between April and July. He said they go out to the salesmen in August “when the entire industry” sends out its samples for retail orders.
Failure of the company to have samples to show its customers in August will mean “a very large reduction in the amount of production needed for the coming year, and in turn, ess employes,” Nelligan said.
Nelligan contended that the union stood to benefit if the injunction is not granted because production of samples leads to sales and “stable employment and perhaps increased employment.”
Operating under full capacity, the company is able to produce between 120,000 and 130,000 pairs of shoes a day, Nelligan said. He said the company wants to make up about 45,000 samples over a six-to-eight week period.
In response to questions from both union counsel Daniel Baker and Uniroyal counsel J. Kenneth Bradley, Nelligan said it would “not be practical or possible ” to produce the samples at some other Uniroyal plant other than Naugatuck.
Machinery Needed
He said machinery necessary for production is not available at other Uniroyal facilities.
Nelligan also was questioned at some length on meetings he attended May 8 and May 15 with other company officials and union leaders.
He said at a May 15 meeting, Jack Smith, plant manager, told the union “very emphatically” that the shutdown agreement had been broken when the union pickets blocked entrance gates.
He added that Smith also said that although he didn’t believe the agreement was in effect the company would still honor it.
He also admitted that “except for a few isolated instances” the union had complied with the agreement.
Smith denied that he ever said he would honor the agreement even though he felt it had been violated.
He said the union broke the agreement when the company announced in May that it would begin shipments from the plant. He said Raymond Mengacci, Local 45 vice president, warned that there would be nothing shipped from that facility. . ”
Smith testified that on the scheduled day of shipping, violence on the picket line prevented any shipments.
Smith contended that “We don’t have an agreement because the union chose to abrogate it and we consider ourselves to be relieved of any obligations under the agreement.”
Under cross-examination, Baker attempted to establish that the picket line violence resulted when the company allegedly broke a verbal agreement not to have any personnel in the plant after 6 p.m.
He asked both Nelligan and Smith about the alleged agreement and questioned them about “30 or 40 people” who were brought into the plant after 6 p.m. to begin preparations for shipment on the following day.
Donald Hadley, sales manager, claimed that between 50 and 60 per cent of the company’s business comes from sales of new styles.
Says Samples Vital
Responding to Bradley’s questions, he said without samples to show potential customers, damage to the company “conceivably could never be made up.”
It was at this juncture that Judge Gaffney reminded Atty Bradley that “it is the claimant (the union) not the defendant (Uniroyal) who has to show irreparable damage.”
Bradley said he wanted to show the company would suffer substantial harm if it can’t produce the samples.
“Then I would suggest,” the judge quipped, “that perhaps you should bring an injunction to stop the union from bringing this injunction.”
Brief testimony also was taken from Joseph J. Foley, a strike captain and member of the union negotiating committee.
Foley said, “I think there would be a lot of violence” if the court order is not issued, because the union “would have no way” of controlling the strikers.
Mengacci had predicted the same result in testimony Tuesday. He warned of “bloodshed in Naugatuck.”
Bradley questioned why, if union leaders were able to control the pickets after Judge Gaffney had cautioned them against violence in May, they could not control them in the future. He was not permitted to pursue that line of questioning any further.
The hearing concluded with a reaffirmation by the company that it “will not undertake to do anything” in the way of production until after the judge’s finding.