Judge Richard Arcara
After negotiating the asset purchase agreement for its impending sale, Will Poultry Co. sent its employees layoff notices under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. In addition to its grievance that the layoffs violated their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Local 264 threatened to strike if Will did not include a Successor and Assigns Clause in the CBA before the sale’s closing. After Will obtained a temporary restraining order barring striking and secondary activity, Local 264 removed Wills’ suit to district court. Will renewed its request for a preliminary injunction. Discussing Boys Market v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, district court ruled that it held jurisdiction to enter an injunction. Citing Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour, it found Article 9 of the CBA—requiring arbitration of all grievances and disputes arising under the CBA—an implied no-strike clause, and that the parties’ underlying disputes were arbitrable under the CBA. In reinstating the temporary restraining order initially signed by the state court’s judge, the court found Will showed irreparable harm through the potential losses of: three significant customers; customer goodwill; and the purchaser who did not intend to relocate the company.
