WPC|5 e(%,%M3]}5m;N=Ex91O%>N9'$Side=ƼGǎKWVIqNԾ!4kqmwD#S(TmXGؒMuWI fxJAٔ>/᠕xy z5sB޲/ K 9_ =!EGi[Ps %f+ jCTI3=$RqC'ZMa p#J= |ضݢ:ࡰ+#yOH̠%ϰj"1 AѷvR=~B~&L#Vx[uu\@Gxؕ̌ҏ3<(1WQ؏qWU!bٰGfK[iھ^I'8 L8}'|ʨ¶> :][V,^Uy˲8#F U> %E 0GK U:  ^ w 4   0c bd 0Dl  bzE mNU 8U* 0U 0 0 0 0 0z 0W 01! 0" 0C" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0i& 04' 0' 0( 0@) 0) 0* 0f+ 04, 0, 0- 0. 0N/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B44444444444 04HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX,`  "CG Times Boldy2s 6x2 H3|x(;3Y$ !X62XXX  - -($  *    U$X<2XXX    1    _"[_C]ourts_Ԁofappealshallhavejurisdictionofappealsfrom  ...[_i]nterlocutory_ԀordersofthedistrictcourtsoftheUnited  States...granting,continuing,modifying,refusingor \ dissolvinginjunctions."- -U<4 9Z+ Courier New  K U$X<2XXX    2    _AlsoappearingasDefendantf  g sf  g ԄAppellees/CrossAppellantsare  Michael_Langer_,Kevin_McGettigan_,andSteveMorseintheir  individualandofficialcapacitiesasofficialsofLocal4.The \ term"Local4"usedhereinincludestheindividuallynamed 2 defendantsinadditiontothelocalunion.  U$X<2XXX    4    _Local4had,however,previouslyfiledgrievancesconcerning  disputesovertheuseofcranesforplunger/cylinderinstallation.  Onbothprioroccasions,Otisrejectedthegrievances,andLocal4 \ didnotappealtothenextstepoftheArticleXVprocedure,thus 2 renderingOtis'objectionbinding.SeeLettersofMay5andMay7, X 2004fromDorothyL._Mynahan_,OtisBranchManager,toMichael . _Langer_,_IUEC_.  U$X<2XXX    5    _Becauseweultimatelyreversethoseportionsoftheinjunction  directedagainstOtis,weneednotconsideritsadditionalclaim  thatthedistrictcourtcommittederrorinnotgrantingan \ evidentiaryhearingbeforeissuingthepreliminaryinjunction.See 2 29U.S.C.107(requiringhearingpriortoissuanceofan X injunctioninlabordisputes).Astotheportionofthe . preliminaryinjunctionthatweaffirmtheprohibitiononfurther   workstoppagesbyLocal4noevidentiaryhearingwasnecessary   becausethefactssupportingthatreliefarenotindispute.See `  KansasCityS.Transp.Co.,Inc.v.TeamstersLocalUnionNo.41, 6   126F.3d1059,106768(8thCir.1997)(holdingthatif29U.S.C.  \  107appliestoBoysMarketsinjunctions,itdoesnotrequirean  2  evidentiaryhearingwheninjunctionisbasedonundisputedfacts).  U$X<2XXX    3    _TheNACmeetsonceeverycalendarquarter.Ontheemployer's  side,theNACiscomposedofOtisf  g ԀDirectorofLaborRelations(or  hisdesignee)andtwootherOtisrepresentatives,whilethe_IUEC_Ԁis \ representedbyitsGeneralPresident(orhisdesignee)andtwo 2 otherunionrepresentatives.f  g f  g Artf  g .f  g ԀXV,f  g Ԁpara.4.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5    U$X<2XXX    6    _WenotethattheSupremeCourtapprovedanorder,whichdidnot  preemptanypreviouslyagreeduponprocedure,thatwasissuedto  eliminateapotentiallyunsafeworkingconditionpending \ arbitration.GatewayCoalCo.,414U.S.368(approvingcourt 2 orderedsuspension,pendingarbitration,offoremanwhomunion X believedtoposeasafetyrisk).Nosuchorderisatissueinthe . instantcase.Moreover,weexpressnoviewatthistimeonwhat   limitedmeasurestoorderexpeditionofexistinggrievance   procedures,ifany,liewithinacourt'sequitableauthority,nor `  onwhatcircumstancesjustifytheiruse.SeeHannaMin.Co.v. 6   UnitedSteelworkers,464F.2d565,569(8thCir.1972).The  \  procedureorderedheredivergedfromthatagreeduponbythe  2  partiesinmorethanjustthetime_requirements._ d(J2U$ !X62XXX      0   !X<2XXX  _f @ g XXXX<2O6XX8<2XXdd8  *!@4 4 UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  N.O6@ FortheFirstCircuit   N.X<2X Ay) ` dE<C ` A D  Nos.041933  O   042047  % @OTISELEVATORCOMPANY,    @ PlaintiffAppellant/CrossAppellee, -}  @tt)v. )  @DDINTERNATIONALUNIONOFELEVATORCONSTRUCTORS,LOCAL4;   @MICHAEL_LANGER_,IndividuallyandasBusinessManager; [ @dd KEVIN_MCGETTIGAN_,IndividuallyandasBusinessRepresentative; 1 @ andSTEVEMORSE,IndividuallyandasBusinessRepresentative, W @  DefendantsAppellees/CrossAppellants.  Ay) ` dE<^` A _ @` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT D @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS j @ [Hon.JosephL.Tauro,U.S.DistrictJudge]  Ay) ` dE<q` A r @'Before W @Torruella,CircuitJudge,  S! @ Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge,  )" @andLipez,CircuitJudge. !# Ay) ` dE<Z#` A [#%     TimothyE.Copeland,Jr.,withwhomDowns_Rachllin_ԀMartin @$' _PLLC_,PeterB.Robb,_Shari_ԀS._Sobel_,Morgan,Brown&Joy,_LLP_and %f ( NathanL._Kaitz_f  g Ԁwereonbrief,forappellant/crossappellee. %