Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—D. Vt.: Union granted temporary restraining order to halt closure of dairy facility, (Aug 20, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The union argued that injunctive relief “is necessary to enjoin the threatened closure and relocation pending arbitration in order to prevent the Employer from effectively vitiating the contracts’ dispute resolution mechanism.”

A union was granted a motion for a status quo temporary restraining order to halt the closure of a dairy facility after an employer announced an impending closure of the plant, ruled a federal district court in Vermont. The court found that the union’s verified complaint set forth testimony justifying a temporary injunction. According to the union, the employer had begun effectuating the closure by ceasing milk processing, the receipt of deliveries, the ordering of necessary supplies, and that machinery was being dismantled. Thus, the court determined that the union had alleged a claim that, if sustained, fell within the Niagara Hooker exception and met the requirements for a temporary restraining order (Teamsters Local Union No. 597 v. St. Albans Creamery, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-281 (D. Vt. Aug. 17, 2026)).

The Teamsters represents nearly 80 employees at St. Albans Creamery. The employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The current CBA includes a non-discrimination provision barring the employer from discriminating against employees for union activity or membership. The CBA also requires binding arbitration for any alleged violations of the agreement.

Plant closure. On June 17, 2026, the employer issued a notice to employees that it intended to close the St. Albans facility, with the first phase of the closure to occur on August 17, 2026. In response, the union initiated a grievance under the CBA, claiming that the employer was retaliating against employees for holding a strike in the fall of 2025. The union also demanded effects and decisional bargaining. According to the union, the parties have engaged in a few bargaining sessions over the effects of the decision, with no resolution to date, and that the employer has “refused to submit to any decisional bargaining.”

The union alleged that it was in possession of an internal corporate memorandum dated October 7, 2025—the date on which the parties ratified the latest CBA—proposing “idling operations” at the St. Albans facility with the primary goal of “Union Decertification.” The union further claimed that the employer had begun effectuating the closure. The plant has largely ceased processing milk, receiving deliveries, and ordering necessary supplies. Machinery is being dismantled and equipment is being prepared for shipment to other facilities.

Temporary restraining order. Here, the union asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order requiring the employer to cease the closure “until grievances can be completely processed and resolved through the contractual dispute resolution procedure.”

The Norris-LaGuardia Act “deprives federal courts of the jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in labor disputes, except in limited circumstances.” One limited exception can be traced to Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970), which allowed a temporary restraining order preventing a union from striking in violation of a no-strike provision in a collective bargaining agreement. The Second Circuit has extended Boys Markets to the inverse scenario, allowing “unions to obtain injunctions against employers to preserve the status quo pending arbitration of a labor dispute as long as: (1) the underlying dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration; and (2) the injunction is necessary to prevent the arbitration process from becoming a ‘hollow formality’ or ‘meaningless ritual.’”

In this instance, the court agreed with the union that the underlying dispute is clearly subject to mandatory arbitration. The CBA bars discrimination based on union-related activity or membership and further provides that grievances related to a CBA violation must be resolved in binding arbitration. The first prong was therefore satisfied.

With respect to the “hollow formality” or “meaningless ritual” prong, Niagara Hooker Emps. Union v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 935 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1991), held that the arbitration process is “rendered meaningless only if any arbitral award in favor would substantially fail to undo the harm occasioned by the lack of a status quo injunction.”

The union argued that, in this case, injunctive relief “is necessary to enjoin the threatened closure and relocation pending arbitration in order to prevent the Employer from effectively vitiating the contracts’ dispute resolution mechanism.” Again, the court agreed, pointing out that a closure at this time would arguably frustrate the arbitrator’s ability to remedy the alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement.

Injunctive relief. Next, the court turned to the traditional requirements for obtaining immediate injunctive relief. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Success on the merits. With respect to success on the merits, the plaintiff only needs to show that its dispute under the CBA “is sufficiently sound to prevent the arbitration from being a futile endeavor.” Here, the union claimed to be in possession of evidence, both spoken and written, to support its claim. Thus, the court was satisfied at this stage that the union will be presenting a non-futile claim.

Irreparable harm. Irreparable harm occurs when “upon final resolution of the action the parties cannot be returned to the positions they previously occupied.” Here, a failure to award preliminary relief halting a closure would result in the frustration of arbitration, as the union’s victory at arbitration would ring hollow without a continuing place of employment. The court therefore found that the union had met its burden of showing irreparable harm.

Public interest. Finally, the union described the well-recognized public interest in enforcing contracts, as well as public policy favoring collective bargaining and arbitration of labor disputes. Accordingly, the court found that the equities of the case, the balance of hardships, and the public interest favored the union’s position.

The case is No. 2:26-cv-281.

Judge: Sessions, W., III.

Attorneys: Alfred S. Gordon O’Connell (Pyle Rome Ehrenberg) for Teamsters Local Union No. 597. Jonathan C. Fritts (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius) for St. Albans Creamery, LLC, and Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

Companies: Teamsters Local Union No. 597; St. Albans Creamery, LLC; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers ContractClaims Procedure VermontNews