Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bettendorf-stanford Bakery Equip. v. Uaw

OPINION FILED MAY 16, 1977.

BETTENDORF-STANFORD BAKERY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW: LOCAL UNION NO. 1906, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Marion County; the Hon. RONALD A. NIEMANN, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE KARNS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This is an interlocutory appeal by defendants, Local 1906 of the United Auto Workers Union and 27 named individual union members and officers, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 307). Defendants seek reversal of an order of the Circuit Court of Marion County denying their motion to vacate a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued without notice or bond after an ex parte hearing. Plaintiff-appellee Bettendorf-Stanford Bakery Equipment Company has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, which motion we ordered taken with the case.

On November 9, 1976, plaintiff filed a complaint for an injunction to prohibit defendants from certain picket line activities which were allegedly interfering with ingress to and egress from plaintiff's plant in Salem. The same day, without notice to the union or any of the individual defendants, plaintiff went before the court with a motion for a TRO. The motion was supported by two virtually identical affidavits, given by Salem police chief James Baity and plant manager Michael Munter. The affidavits alleged that some 25 picketers were blocking the driveway entrance to the plant and threatening and intimidating those attempting to enter, that the plant manager, employees, and other persons had been prevented from entering the plant by automobile, and that the picketers had ignored demands to cease and desist from these activities. After an ex parte hearing at which the court heard testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, it issued a TRO pursuant to section 3-1 of the Injunction Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 69, par. 3-1) enjoining the defendants from "interfering [with] and restraining the movement of traffic upon Plaintiff's premises, and from committing any other illegal or unlawful acts of intimidation or acts unrelated to the purposes for which picketing or demonstrations might be conducted * * *." On November 17, 1976, the court denied defendants' motion to vacate the TRO.

We turn first to plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal. The gist of that motion is that, even should this court hold that the court below erred in denying defendants' motion to vacate the TRO, no effectual relief could be granted because defendants did not seek damages for wrongful issuance of the TRO in their motion to vacate; therefore, according to plaintiff, now that the TRO has expired, this appeal deals only with a moot question or abstract proposition and should be dismissed.

• 1, 2 We cannot agree. By timely moving to vacate the TRO and then perfecting their appeal, defendants preserved for review the question whether or not the TRO was wrongfully issued. The question of damages, if any, does not come into issue until and unless an adjudication is made that the issuance was wrongful. Supreme Court Rule 307 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 307) requires only that a party intending to take an appeal from an interlocutory order entered on ex parte application first present a motion to vacate to the trial court; there is no requirement that the appellant must request damages in the proceedings below. In Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co. v. Barker, 55 Ill.2d 177, 303 N.E.2d 1 (1973), in holding that the denial of a motion to vacate a TRO is appealable under Rule 307, our supreme court said: "During the time when it remains in effect a restraining order could work substantial injury upon the defendant, injuries for which he should be entitled to recover damages if the order was wrongfully issued." (55 Ill.2d 177, 184, 303 N.E.2d 1, 5.) Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Defendants present a number of reasons why we should hold that the court below erred in denying their motion to vacate the TRO. The most significant, and the one on which we base our decision, is the lack of compliance with the notice provisions of section 3-1 of the Injunction Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 69, par. 3-1). That section provides, in pertinent part:

"No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the adverse party unless it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice * * * shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice * * *."

• 3 As we have said before, these statutory provisions are not mere technicalities. (G.H. Sternberg & Co. v. Cellini, 16 Ill. App.3d 1, 6, 305 N.E.2d 317, 321 (5th Dist. 1973).) Here, the motion for the TRO, the affidavits, and the complaint for injunction attached to the motion were totally silent as to any specific facts indicating that immediate and irreparable injury would result before notice could be given to defendants. Similarly, the court's order granting the TRO, while it recited in conclusory terms that defendants' acts "threaten irrepairable [sic] and immediate damage to Plaintiff," did not define the injury or state why it was irreparable or why the order was granted without notice. The TRO indicates that it was entered at 11:55 a.m. Nothing appears of record to suggest why, at the very least, informal notice could not have been given to some of the individual defendants who were picketing plaintiff's plant earlier that morning that application for a TRO was going to be made.

As far as we can tell from this record, the situation in the instant case made even less of a compelling case for dispensing with notice than that in Sangamo Electric Co. v. UAW, 42 Ill. App.3d 563, 356 N.E.2d 389 (4th Dist. 1976). There the court said:

"Notice and the opportunity to be heard are at the core of our judicial system. As said in Skarpinski v. Veterans of Foreign Wars (1951), 343 Ill. App. 271, 98 N.E.2d 858, 860, the critical question for us to ask is whether, in the minutes or hours necessary for defendant to appear, defendant might do that which would seriously affect the issues in dispute.

In the case at bar, it is apparent from the complaint that the seriousness of the events on the picket line was escalating. However, no facts are alleged which indicate that the situation would be much changed in the few hours it would take to informally notify defendants.

* * * As noted in Skarpinski, a telephone call can produce an appearance within minutes. Some notice, however informal, is greatly to be preferred to none at all. No facts appear in the record which would justify entry of the order at 9:35 a.m., without notice, rather than entry some time later that day after notice had been given." 42 Ill. App.3d 563, 564-65, 356 N.E.2d 389, 390-91.

• 4, 5 The law does not in any case favor the granting of injunctive relief without notice; such a drastic remedy is appropriate only under the most extreme circumstances. (See, e.g., Miollis v. Schneider, 77 Ill. App.2d 420, 222 N.E.2d 715 (2d Dist. 1966), and cases cited therein; cf. People ex rel. Thrasher v. Eisenberg, 202 Ill. App. 63, 67-68 (1st Dist. 1916): "The policy of the law is that no one shall be deprived of any substantial right even temporarily without first being heard in his own defense.") Although ordinarily a presumption of validity attaches to the order of a court, no such presumption is indulged in favor of injunctive relief granted without notice. (G.H. Sternberg & Co. v. Cellini, 16 Ill. App.3d 1, 305 N.E.2d 317 (5th Dist. 1973); Berenson v. Berenson, 34 Ill. App.2d 376, 181 N.E.2d 357 (1st Dist. 1962).) The declared policy of this State disfavors the use of TROs or injunctions in labor disputes (see section 1 of the Anti-Injunction Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, par. 2a). We think, therefore, that a TRO granted without notice in the context of a labor dispute requires even closer than ordinary judicial scrutiny. The TRO in the instant case, for the reasons stated above, cannot withstand such scrutiny.

When injunctive relief is granted without notice where notice should have been given, the appellate court will reverse without regard to any other question. (Sangamo Electric Co. v. UAW; Skarpinski v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 343 Ill. App. 271, 98 N.E.2d 858 (1st Dist. 1951).) Accordingly, the order of the Circuit Court of Marion County denying defendants' motion to vacate the TRO is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court with directions that it grant the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.