220 Ga. 596 | Ga. | 1965
Error is assigned on the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County denying plaintiff’s prayers for a temporary injunction. The sole assignment of error is on the ground that the trial judge abused his discretion because the order denying the temporary injunction is without evidence to support it.
This case commenced when Carpenters Local Union No. 3024 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed their petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (hereinafter referred to as United Brotherhood) and Carpenters Local Union No. 225 (hereinafter referred to as Local Union No. 225). The essential allegations of count 1 of the amended petition were as follows: that plaintiff and Local Union No. 225 were both chartered by the United Brotherhood; that plaintiff’s charter was granted in 1961 and prior to that time the members of the plaintiff union were members of Local Union No. 225; that plaintiffs and defendants agreed that plaintiff’s work jurisdiction would include certain dry .wall construction; that plaintiff submitted its constitution and working rules to the United Brotherhood and that the said United Brotherhood approved them; that the working rules gave plaintiff jurisdiction of the work in controversy and pursuant to
1. From the summary of the pleadings given above, it appears -that two points were in issue: (1) whether there was a valid contract giving the plaintiff union jurisdiction over the work in question; (2) whether defendants threatened to cause a strike in violation of the Georgia Right to Work Laws. There was a conflict in the evidence on both these points.
(a) On the issue of jurisdiction over the work in question, the plaintiff sought to show that the approval of its charter and working rules by the United Brotherhood had the effect of giving plaintiff jurisdiction over the dry wall construction. However, Henry W. Chandler, a member of the General Executive Board of the United Brotherhood, representing District Four, testified: that the United Brotherhood “inspects the rules only with respect to conflicts with the General Constitution and Laws of the Brotherhood and makes no investigation as to possible conflict between one set of working rules with those of another local union or as to conflicts with the jurisdiction of another local union of the Brotherhood”; that plaintiff did not submit its charter or working rules to Local Union No. 225 for approval and that it was customary to do so; that he had made a personal investigation in his official capacity as a member of the General Executive Board of the United Brotherhood and found that the plaintiff union did not have jurisdiction over the dry wall construction in controversy. This was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that there was no valid contract giving the plaintiff union jurisdiction over the dry wall construction in controversy.
(b) In regard to a violation of the Georgia Right to Work Laws, the plaintiff alleges that Local Union No. 225 has announced its intention to demand fees from the members of plaintiff union and has stated that it will cause a strike if such fees are not paid. While there was evidence adduced at the hearing to support these allegations, there was also testimony by E. C. Hamilton, the business representative of Local Union No. 225,
The evidence being in conflict, the court did not err in denying the temporary injunction. Code § 55-108; Johnson v. Southern States Phosphate &c. Co., 163 Ga. 98 (135 SE 435); Jeanes v. William Prescott Turpentine Co., 185 Ga. 91 (194 SE 746).
Judgment affirmed.