Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215 v. Bootz Manufacturing Co.

S.D. Indiana

Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215 v. Bootz Manufacturing Co.

866 F. Supp. 1138, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20391, 1993 WL 750618

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana

DecidedAugust 20, 1993

DocketNo. EV 93-143-C

StatusPublished

This text of 866 F. Supp. 1138 (Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215 v. Bootz Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215 v. Bootz Manufacturing Co., 866 F. Supp. 1138, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20391, 1993 WL 750618 (S.D. Ind. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

BROOKS, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting Defendant from implementing its drug testing policy. The parties appeared by counsel in person on 13 August 1993 and by telephone on 16 August 1993.

It is undisputed that the parties are signatories to a collective bargaining agreement and that the current dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of that collective bargaining agreement. It is also undisputed that the parties have agreed to expedited arbitration. Since there are no Seventh Circuit cases directly on point, the Court will look to other circuits. While there is a conflict between the Second Circuit¹ and Tenth Circuit cases cited, the Court is persuaded by Local 2-286 v. Amoco Oil, 885 F.2d 697, 707 (10th Cir.1989) (“In light of the invasion of privacy threatened by Amoeo’s testing program, and the potential for stigmatization and humiliation of its employees, we do not believe that an arbitral award of reinstatement and backpay could make affected employees whole.”).

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 107 the Court makes the following findings: (a) Defendant has unilaterally implemented a policy which is subject to arbitration, (b) substantial and irreparable injury will follow if the policy was improperly implemented, (c) the injury to the Defendant by delaying implementation is less than that to the Plaintiff if the policy is implemented, (d) the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, (e) local officials are unable to prevent the implementation of the policy.

The Court being duly advised and of the opinion that a temporary restraining order should issue, it is

ORDERED that Bootz Manufacturing Company is restrained from implementing its drug testing policy for a period of ten days, and

ORDERED that the parties proceed with expedited arbitration of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

BROOKS, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting Defendant from implementing its drug testing policy. The parties appeared by counsel in person on 13 August 1993 and by telephone on 16 August 1993.

It is undisputed that the parties are signatories to a collective bargaining agreement and that the current dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of that collective bargaining agreement. It is also undisputed that the parties have agreed to expedited arbitration. Since there are no Seventh Circuit cases directly on point, the Court will look to other circuits. While there is a conflict between the Second Circuit¹ and Tenth Circuit cases cited, the Court is persuaded by Local 2-286 v. Amoco Oil, 885 F.2d 697, 707 (10th Cir.1989) (“In light of the invasion of privacy threatened by Amoeo’s testing program, and the potential for stigmatization and humiliation of its employees, we do not believe that an arbitral award of reinstatement and backpay could make affected employees whole.”).

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 107 the Court makes the following findings: (a) Defendant has unilaterally implemented a policy which is subject to arbitration, (b) substantial and irreparable injury will follow if the policy was improperly implemented, (c) the injury to the Defendant by delaying implementation is less than that to the Plaintiff if the policy is implemented, (d) the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, (e) local officials are unable to prevent the implementation of the policy.

The Court being duly advised and of the opinion that a temporary restraining order should issue, it is

ORDERED that Bootz Manufacturing Company is restrained from implementing its drug testing policy for a period of ten days, and

ORDERED that the parties proceed with expedited arbitration of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 F. Supp. 1138, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20391, 1993 WL 750618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chauffeurs-teamsters-helpers-local-union-215-v-bootz-manufacturing-co-insd-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack