City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees' Union

language Bearing in 2-715 mind the §§2-725, passage purposes underlying 1-102and the basic uniformity in area of the Code and need for hesitancy construing §2-725 mean no we have law, exactly language says. in de- what its Furthermore, language parting, rule from the due to the the Code, §91 of the enunciated we are mindful that Jones, Statutory Act that “whenever Construction mandates general purports man- law establish uniform datory system covering subjects, a class of such law special repeal pre-existing local or shall construed subjects.” on the laws same class question impression appeal presents a of first This appellate Our of this courts Commonwealth.7 1-102 back- examination of 2-715 and and the §§2-725, ground legislative Code that it indicates was the period year intent that there four on be a of limitation irrespec- all actions for breach of for contracts sale,8 damages sought personal tive of whether are injuries or otherwise.

Order on reversed. Costs Gas Works. Engelman Light See, Co., v. Eastern however: 30 Pa. D. C.& the same result herein reached. 2d 38 which reaches undisputed supplying gas home It to Gardiners’ within “con basis falls the definitions of a on a month-to-month Code, within §2-106 §2-106. or “sale” P.S. tract for sale” City Open & Inc. Motel Line Hearth, Hotel, Employees’ Appellant.

Club Mus- 1963. Before Bell, J.,C. Argued April Roberts, O’Brien Eagen, manno, Jones, Cohen, JJ. 1964. refused March

reargument for appel- him R. with Edward Sowe, Davis, Alan lants. ¡3. & him with Bell Kleinbard, Keyser,

Arthur for appellee. Breaker,

Opinion Chief Mr. Justice January Bell, 1964: appeal an defendant its Union and

This Court a Decree from below which President preliminary injunction restraining appel- granted from premises plaintiff-ap- lants picketing pellee.

Facts On Inc., November Open Line City Hearth, restau- hereinafter opened referred to as City Line, rant and Avenue, cocktail lounge at Line City filed a Philadelphia. On Line January City 16, 1963, Complaint injunction against for an Equity asking ac- coercive because defendants-appellants, their tivities and their conduct which characterized threats and violence. proved

The coercion which Line City charged inter 6(2) a violation of Section constituted, alia, 1937.* Labor Relations Act of June Pennsylvania im lower overlooked the However, legally Labor portant fact that it have violated the would also amended. Management Relations Act of as 1947,** provides: Section of that 8(b)(7) Act pertinently It an unfair “(b) practice shall be labor for a labor organization or its ... or cause agents picket or threaten to or picket picket cause to be picketed, cm*** any forcing where thereof is ed, employer object or an requiring employer recognize bargain a labor em organization representative as of his ployees, forcing requiring employees accept or select such employer labor organization their collective . . . .” bargaining representative, a of Complaint the

Following hearing and a consid- eration of the evidence en- Judge Milner presented, tered a injunction. immedi- preliminary Defendants appealed on the that ately ground since the activities of complained appellee were by “arguably” proscribed * 1168, seq. P. L. P.S. et §211.1 ** 120, 136, seq., 61 Stat. 29 U.S.C.A. 141 et O. as amended. *** throughout, ours. Italics under the practices as unfair labor Section of 8(b) Management National Labor Relations Act of 1947, ju- the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive in the matter. risdiction Injunction

Basis Lower Court’s While the finding that the conducted picketing by in characterized by defendants was what amounted timidating vandalism lower conduct, the violence, a on granted injunction grounds the preliminary that had there been no of federal (1) jurisdict showing endeavoring ion** and that the were defendants ** days prior City opening Line, pickets A few to the official representing City appeared signs stating Line the Union with that City awas non-union a secret establishment. offered to hold Line employees election to if determine at restaurant wished the join the Union. The this Union refused offer. 29, 1962, City Labor On Line with the National November filed charge against appellant was Relations Board a that it collectively picketing require City bargain Un- Line to though not ion even the Union was certified Board 1962, bargaining agent. re- December Board exclusive On complaint, giving no reason for its refusal. fused issue peti 19, 1962, City Line with the Board a On December filed (defendant) certification, asserting claimed that the Union tion employees. City January 17, represented On it Line’s filed petition the Union dismissed because was employees. In view of interest the affected a disclaimer jurisdiction, we had twice refused to take the N.L.R.B. fact Judge picket why hearing concluded that understand can arguably exclusive not within ing defendants conducted N.L.R.B., Board. jurisdiction Labor The the National Relations case, granted in the instant filed had been after correctly jurisdiction. Judge taking Advisory Opinion trial consequently part could the record and it that was ruled Commonwealth, 2d Pa. 170 A. considered: not be Wolf Kiezeck, Products, 80 A. 2d Inc. v. 557; Surco Company Allentown, Distributing Pa. v. Columbia Roth Capital Company, Bank Pa. and Trust Seller 2d A.

425 to commit a of Section appellee coerce violation of the Labor Relations Pennsylvania 6 Act, snpra, the defendant Union. forcing employees join its ap- the first and challenges Union denies ground, shall consider plicability ground. second We in their order. inverse grounds of the misunderstood state of Because the law at analyze we shall review cases field, many attempt existing to eliminate much length, confusion. Prior (cid:127).

Jurisdiction Power State Courts to the Act Taft-Hartley Prior to Man the enactment of Labor the National agement Act Relations referred frequently 1947, as the doubt whatso there no Taft-Hartley Act, picket ever as to the of a to restrain right State if the ing which was violation of even State law, v. were Brotherhood picketing peaceful: International 354 284 Un Vogt, Inc., ; U.S. Service (1957) Building ion v. Gazzam, (1950) ; Hughes Supe 339 U.S. 532 rior Court Pas & California, 460; Bakery : Drivers v. 315 775. Cf. also Allen- try Wohl, U.S. 769, Local v. Wisconsin E. R. 315 740.* Bradley Board, 174, However, Supreme States A. 298. Court of the United 198 specifically Na- it whether has ruled makes no difference .the jurisdic- tional Relations has declined to exercise its Labor thereby tion, though often it creates a “no man’s land” and even parties redress. leaves without * Building Northampton Authority Joint Area School Also: Easton, Allentown, Bethlehem & Trades Council and Construction Anchorage, A.F.L., 688; Inc. v. Local 301 A. 2d 152 396 Pa. Enterprises, 199; Sansom House Inc. A. 2d 383 Pa. Union, 746; Baderak A. 2d & Waitresses 382 Pa. Waiters Council, Building Trades and Construction A. Bartenders, and Delaware Counties v. Chester Wilbank 2d Employees Pa. A. 2d Bestaurant Hotel Inc., Teamsters v. Vogt, International Brotherhood of in the summarized is well (1957), supra, pit operates and a “Respondent gravel owns syllabus: Peti- in it to 20 men. employs where Wisconsin, of tioner to some unions induce sought unsuccessfully began unions and respondent’s join to employees pit with respondent’s gravel the entrance to picketing men on af- job ‘The are not signs reading, 100% A.F.L.’ of several filiated with the As a drivers result, haul trucking companies goods refused to deliver and to respondent’s and from substantial causing plant, respondent’s to On damage respondent. application, enjoined picketing. State Court on Supreme findings was sustained State it in had been ~by (1) picketing engaged em- purpose respondent of to force its coercing petitioner unions, become members of ployees such since picketing was for ‘an unlawful purpose,’ Wis. §111.06(2) prac- Stat. made it an unfair labor (b) tice for an employee or in concert with individually others to intimidate or ‘coerce, employer induce an interfere of of any with his in employes enjoyment their ... legal rights or to engage practice with any to his regard employes which would un- constitute an fair labor if practice undertaken himby on his own initiative.’ Held: The judgment is affirmed. Prior decisions of

“(a) this Court have established a broad field State, enforcing pub- some lic whether its criminal or policy, its civil law, whether announced its legislature or its courts, may constitutionally enjoin peaceful picketing aimed at pre- venting policy. effectuation of “(b) Consistently the Fourteenth Amend- a State enjoin peaceful ment, may picketing pur- Carpenters Phillips Brotherhood v. United and Joiners Amer ica, Wort ex Mills v. Textile Workers Un A. 2d 362 Pa. ion, (and therein). A. 2d cases cited pose which is to coerce an employer put pressure on his employees join a union in violation of the declared of the State. policy Pappas v. Stacey, Me. A. 2d 36, 116 appeal 350 U.S. 870. dismissed,

“270 Wis. 74 N.W. 2d affirmed.” 321a, Recent Decisions re N.L.R.B. Jurisdiction State Courts Supreme more recent However, decisions of the Court of the United States cited which are hereinafter and quoted lay down and apply tests, different rules without distinguishing expressly overruling aforesaid decisions.

In order to vest the National Labor Relations Board with jurisdiction exclusive and divest State of Courts jurisdiction Equity pos which have they sessed for a very period of long it is necessary, time, in this class of parties claim case, who that N.L.R.B. has jurisdiction exclusive inter prove, alia, that was employer com engaged interstate merce or that its activities inter substantially* affect state commerce and (2) that activities challenged were or expressly within of arguably jurisdiction the N.L.R.B.: Local United 100, Association Jour of neymen & Apprentices v. Borden, 373 U.S. 693 690, (June Marine 3, 1963); Engineers Associa Beneficial tion v. Interlake Steamship 370 Co., U.S. 173; Construc tion and General Laborers’ Union v. 371 Curry, U.S. * Pennsylvania Friedterg, 294, Cf. L. R. B. v. Pa. 395 148 A. 2d See, Jay’s Center, Inc., (and 909. also Food 142 N.L.R.B. No. 142 therein) provides cases cited which that the Board’s current stand jurisdiction exercising enterprises satisfy ard for over retail statutory jurisdiction (the its under the Landrum-Griffin Act La bor-Management Reporting 1959) (Act and Disclosure Act of September 14, Congress 1959, 86-257), VII, P. L. Title Section 541, 701(a), §164(c) (1) (2), gross 73 Stat. 29 U.S.C.A. is a $500,000 per of business at least volume annum. Ex Union 72; Plumbers’ 542; parte U.S. George, Council Door 359; Diego U.S. San County, Un Hotel 244-245; Employees 359 U.S. Garmon, Weber v. 270; ion Sax Enterprises, Inc., Anheuser-Busch, Garner Inc., 468, 478, U.S. v. Teamsters 489-491. must N.L.E.B.

Furthermore, jurisdiction fact be ascertainable from the averments readily or affirma contained in the Complaint must itself, proved jurisdiction. such tively party alleging Area School Auth. v. Northampton Building Joint Trades 152 A. 2d Construction Pa. Council, 95 A. 2d 195. Davis, Haefele found defendants that Judge specifically Milner that Line* prove engaged had failed to City interstate commerce or it did an annual gross busi or were ness or its activities $500,000 more, jurisdiction within the exclusive otherwise N.L.E.B. Eule

The General herein with certain rule, exceptions general act labor after is now well if a discussed, settled, viz., vio made a prohibited practice activity labor practice but is lation state also law, unfair ju or has which N.L.E.B. expressly arguably over Court is ousted jurisdiction the State risdiction, even of the N.L.E.B. is jurisdiction exclusive, and or jurisdiction Board fails refuses take though the or practice activity. act challenged or to consider Interlake Association v. Marine Engineers Beneficial 370 173 Ex (1962); parte U.S. Steamship Company, * part ground a had leased floor A restaurant only hearing had been in the time of business motel and at Day Thanksgiving two included these months and months two holidays. . Year’s New Christmas

429 George, (1962); Local Construc 438, 371 U.S. 72 No. Curry, tion 371 U.S. Laborers’ Union v. General (January 1963); Diego Garmon, v. 542 Unions San 21, Enterprises, Employees 358 236; 359 U.S. Hotel v. Sax (1959); Board, Labor Relations U.S. 270 v. Utah Guss Amalgamated v. Fairlawn 353 U.S. Meat Cutters 1; Diego Building 353 Trades Meats, Inc., 20; U.S. San (1957) An Council Weber v. Garmon, ; 353 U.S. v. Teamsters Un 468; 348 U.S. heuser-Busch, Garner Supply Pittsburgh Gage & ion, 485; Smith 412 Pa. A. Cor Co., 181; 2d Smith’s 171, Transfer poration v. 2d Voice 409 Pa. 185 A. Teamsters, 217, Beverage Company 563; Terrizzi v. Local Union No. Shopmen’s 408 Pa. 184 A. 2d Baker v. 830, 243; Local Union Pa. No. 403 Pa. 168 A. 2d Napoli, L. R. B. v. A. 2d Pa. supra. Friedberg, L. R. B. v. 395 Pa., general well reason for as basic rule, expressed rule and the field it Marine is thus covers, Engineers Association v. Interlake Steam- Beneficial ship supra (1962) said Co., where the Court U.S., (page 174) Diego Building : “In Council San Trades held that Garmon, proper requires administration of the federal labor law relinquish jurisdiction only state courts to over not ju- actually those controversies found to be within the risdiction of the National Labor but Relations litigation arising might also over from activities which subject arguably agency’s Only cognizance. to that preserve the Court such will Labor rule, held, congressionally delegated Board its ing function decid- and what not what is within its domain.” Diego supra, In San Unions Garmon, U.S., (pages 244-246): the Court said “At it times has particular regulated activity whether been clear governed by perhaps, §7 §8 the States was, sections .... both these outside National the “. . . It is not for us to decide whether de- have Labor or should Relations Board would have, questions When manner. cided these the same activity subject the arguably §7 §8 the or Act, is the defer as the federal courts must States well competence Relations of the National Labor exclusive danger national Board if interference with state policy tois be averted. ju- primary require yield

“To to the States Board of the National Board does not ensure risdiction adjudication disputed activity. If of a of the status judi- appropriate subject the Board federal decides, pro- protected by cial conduct is review, §7, by then matter at an hibited §8, end, jurisdiction. Board are ousted of all Or, States protected may activity nor decide that an is neither question prohibited, thereby whether raise the activity may regulated by How- the States. such may the status the Board also fail to determine ever, jurisdic- disputed by declining of the conduct to assert by refusal of the General Counsel to file tion, charge, adopting disposition some other activity with uncloud- does not define nature significance. legal ... It failure ed follows legal significance to define the under the the Board particular activity give of a the States Act does power In clear to act. the absence of the Board’s protected activity nor determination that an is neither precedent prohibited compelling applied or of to essen- undisputed tially it is not for this Court to de- facts, subject juris- cide such activities are to state whether governing al- consideration is that to . . . diction. potentially to control activities that are low States regulation great danger subject involves too to federal policy.” national labor of conflict with partially land no man’s has been This filled supra, Act of de- Landrum-Griffin N.L.R.B. hereinabove referred to. cisions

431 to Exception General Rule: Courts Power State

to Preserve Order The Supreme Court of the both be- United States, fore and repeatedly Taft-Hartley has after Act3 held that State Courts and have the power, right to restrain duty mass violence, picketing and.overt threats and to violence, preserve and protect public order and and safety prevent to damage- property even absent such if, complained the activities conduct, of would constitute unfair labor practices over which the National Labor Relations Board would exclu- have jurisdiction: sive San Diego Council Building Trades v. Garmon, 359 236; U.S. Youngdahl Inc., v. Rainfair, 355 U.S. 131; United Automobile etc. Workers of America v. Wisconsin Relations Employment Board, 351 U.S., supra; Weber v. Inc., 348 Anheuser-Busch, supra U.S., (1955); Local Wisconsin Allen-Bradley v. 315 supra; Thornhill v. U.S., 310 Alabama,

88; Smith v. Pa. Pittsburgh Gage & Co., 412 Supply 194 A. 2d 171, 181; Smith’s Corp. V. Transfer Teamsters D. O. Com., Pa. 185 A. 2d Ter 217, 563; rizzi Bev. Co. v. Local Union No. 408 Pa. 830, A. 243; 2d Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers U. A., 369 Pa. 85 A. 2d 851.

In Wortex Mills, Inc. v. Textile Workers Union of America, 369 Pa. C.I.O., the Court said (pages : “In 363-364) the light of the mass picketing, and it seems intimidation, strange should anyone contend that a State Court powerless is in- issue an It junction. well to recall that a State or other Sovereign paramount has a right and inescapable to maintain law and duty order, protect life, liberty and to enact property laws and police regulations protection preservation of the health safety, people and welfare the state or community: Corp. Steel Carnegie-Illinois U. S. W. of A., Corp. Westinghouse Electric A. 2d 420, 426, 2dA. Pa. Electrical Workers, 446, 460, United 16. “ adequate power duty to take ‘The of the State privacy, preserve peace protect steps and to property cannot of its residents and the lives, Carl Thornhill v. 310 U.S. Alabama, doubted’: sovereign 113. The California, son protected powers and sustained of a should be State except Consti the Federal or State restricted where Congress except where ‘an “intention tution and power police exerting [is] from their exclude States clearly Napier R. Line Atlantic Coast manifested.” Kelly Wash cited; and cases U.S. 605, Co., Dept. Highway ington, Carolina South 10; 302 U.S. 1, v.Co. H. P. Welch 177; v. Barnwell Bros., Hampshire, Hamilton, 306 U.S. Maurer v. New supra’: Allen-Brad 614; Watson Buck, 309 U.S. 598, ley 749.” E. R. 315 U.S. 740, Local v. Wisconsin Board, Supreme Workers in Automobile Court United supra pertinently (1956), said America, U.S., 274) (page no to re-examine : “There is reason problems opinions dealt in has which jurisdiction involving con- over industrial federal-state adequátely They been summarized have troversies. 474-477 348 U.S. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Weber general matter we have held State that a As [1955]. enjoin public policy, may furtherance its not, prac- an “unfair labor been made ‘which has conduct at cases Id., the federal statutes.’ under tice” opinions post-Taft-Hartley made, have our But cited. general does not rule take .that this it clear from prevent picketing, power mass to violence, States violence. The dominant interest overt damage preventing property violence and the State questioned. genuine It is a matter of local cannot that a should union Nor commits' a concern. fact practice engaging labor while in violent federal unfair prevent steps stop talcing conduct States from violence .... pub- guardians “The States are the natural against

lic violence. It is the local communities most and loss occasioned coer- suffer from fear interpret cion and destruction. act We would Congress powerless to leave emer- them to avert such gencies compelling without directions to that effect.” Youngdahl supra

In v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S., (1957), grant injunction the Court affirmed the of an (pages 138-139) and said : “. . . concede that Petitioners power enjoin the state court had Auto violence. Allen- Workers v. Wisconsin Board, Bradley Local v. Re- Wisconsin 315 U.S. 740. spondent pattern contends that the record here shows a picketing of violence so enmeshed in restore that, enjoin necessary organized it was order, all conduct. urge on other no that there was Petitioners, hand, accordingly, violence here and no threat of it and, there was no factual warrant for the issued.

“The issue here is whether or not the conduct language physical likely of the strikers were to. cause urge violence. Petitioners that all of this abusive lan- guage protected they was and that could therefore, not, enjoined using agree. from it. We cannot Words readily coupled provoke can be so with conduct as to Chaplinsky Hampshire, violence. See v. New U.S. 571-572. Petitioners contend that the words used, principally ‘scab’ and variations are a within thereon, protected terminology. yell But if a sufficient number any sufficiently loudly showing word an intent ridi- annoy, insult no matter cule, how innocuous the dic- tionary may definition of that word, cease effect persuasion to be and become intimidation and incite- Recognizing ment to violence .... that the trial court than we be to assess position in a better can was con- its supports we think the evidence situation, local Supreme by Court, affirmed the State clusion, were petitioners and massed name-calling by conduct do so and likely violence were provoke calculated restrained .” promptly unless Air In International United Automobile, Workers America Implement and Agricultural craft (UAW-CIO) v. where an 356 U.S. 635 Russell, (1958), inter in who worked employee industry affecting union state commerce an action brought against in tort for interference its agent damages in plaintiff’s pick lawful mass occupation, engaging prevented him from work, eting going pertinent for plaintiff Court sustained judgment :* “At note that ly (page 640) said we outset, protected union’s case activity clearly was by federal law. Indeed the strike conducted a manner it could have enjoined by such been Alabama courts. 355 U.S. Youngdahl Rainfair, Inc., 266.” Auto Workers v. Wisconsin 351 U.S. Board,

In Trades Council v. Diego Building Garmon, San 359 U.S. refused an said “It 247) but once : again pertinently (page compen have allowed the to grant true that we States for the as defined tradi consequences, sation of conduct torts, tional law marked violence public to the imminent order. United Automo United Russell, bile Workers Construc tion Workers Laburnum 347 U.S. 656. Corp., We allowed the States to have also such enjoin conduct. Rainfair, 131; Auto Youngdahl Workers v. 351 U.S. 266. State jurisdiction Wisconsin has these situations because the prevailed compelling * Congress preempted had that union asserted had field. in the

state in federalism, the scheme of our interest, in maintenance domestic is not overridden peace of direc- of clearly expressed congressional absence ” tion . . . & In Journeymen Local Association 100, United of Apprentices 1963) Borden, (June 3, 373 U.S. union union a local and a employee parent sued union for their refusal seeking damages under State law for a Company refer him to the Farwell Construction job that this was The Court held that company. Relations matter for the National Labor exclusively Board “This 693) but : again (page said pertinently in held Council v. San Trades Diego Building that over- in absence Garmon, of state riding interest such as that in the main- involved tenance domestic state courts defer to peace, must the exclusive Rela- competence of the National Labor in tions Board cases is activity subject matter of the litigation subject arguably protections prohibitions §7 §8 National Labor .” Relations Act. . .

As recently as this Court October, 1963, said Smith v. Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Co., A. 2d 181 : 176) “To the (page general rule defin ing the U. S. jurisdiction, Supreme Court has recog exceptions* nized in the case of certain even activities, though such are activities arguably, even concededly, protections within the prohibitions §7 §8 * See, example, International for United Automobile Russell, Workers America v. 356 U.S. and United Construc Corp., tion v. Laburnum Workers Construction where damages against a common law tort action a union af was Plywood Algoma Employment Co. v. Wisconsin firmed; Relations exception recently recognized Another U.S. 301. Schermerhorn, (December 2, 1963) Retail Clerks L.W. 4018 even under and Court decided after Taft-Hart where the power Agency ley Act, Shop to ban an have States likewise the ban. to enforce

436 examples been Act. Garmon rule has the As the activity inapplicable (a) held or irrelevant where by imminent marked violence and consists ‘conduct public (United Construction order’ Corp., 347 U.S. Workers v. Laburnum Construction Rus- 74 Automobile Workers v. 656, 833; S. Ct. United 932) Ct. ;____” 78 S. sell, 634, grounds upon deciding Without whether justified, not relied or were we lower Court were upon place our in this case deem it wise to decision unchallengeable ground. completely Even different and place grant- though the Court did not its decree lower injunction ing preliminary necessity on re- prac- straining intimidating the coercive conduct appellants, right not this would affect our ticed power affirm the decree if the be could any ground. justified or on that other Injunction Appellate Preliminary re Review prelimi grant appeal from the or of a On an refusal nary injunction, settled. Court well test but not of the case the merits We consider only decide, any apparently reasonable there were whether grounds justifiable below; of the Court action (or Order) af Decree and if such will exists, presents palpable legal error: the record firmed unless Philadelphia Transportation Philadelphia v. 386 Co., Coplay A. also Hader 132; 126 2d see v. 236, Pa. Mfg. Co., 271; 189 A. 2d 139, 145, Cement Elgart, Pa. A. 2d Ala Sherwood Corp. Pennsylvania Indus & Chemical bama Binder Corp., 410 Pa. A. Lin 2d trial Chemical Pa. Lindenfelser, 385 123 A. 2d 626. denfelser Mfg. Coplay Cement Co., su Pa., In Hader 145-146) (pages “Upon appellate pra, : Court said bound reason or are reasons we ad- review vanced the Court support below a judgment order for it is the itself judgment order which is subject . . . record upon review. ‘The error only is a for a reason re- wrong right we judgment; but, view not reasons but find here we judgments, nothing to correct.’ The true rule on appellate review is that stated Sherwood v. Pa. . . . . . .: Elgart, ‘The rule here is that a applicable correct decision will if sustained it can be sustained for reason what- any soever; other we words will not reverse in such a case even reason though the given the Court below erroneous, to. sustain its decision was [citing cases.]’” even if the grounds or Hence, given reasons the Court for the of a entry injunction preliminary lower in this case were the wrong, decree must be sustained because the was injunction issued to properly restrain conduct which included threatened vio- vandalism, and interference with public order and lence, safety.

Appellants’ Conduct In Judge he thus described opinion, Milner’s character of appellants’ some activities, and vandalism: other “On occasions drivers delivering supplies came running into the office ‘My and said, are from keys gone the truck.’ This loss of keys also occurred repairman. with a Mr. Segal Line’s [City described instances whereby light President] in his automobile switch was on turned causing On battery go dead. another occasion his car seat from was slit back front about 18 inches. He de- damage other and vandalism to parked scribed auto- that mobiles of he observed employees . . . the Penn- Employment sylvania State Service terminated dealing it had although been plaintiff setting up pilot training banquet employees .... program - plaintiff’s one that “One of the testified waitresses pickets vulgar one name; called her a join why ‘Hey, you un- lady, them don’t hollered, rough.’ get pretty ac- ion? described We can She peering in by pickets three tions on at least occasions making people sitting nearby, faces at windows annoyed sticking tongues became their out. Patrons dining room.” and moved further in the back plaintiff Segal los- Mr. had been described how ing tortious unlawful customers as the result conduct of the defendants. conduct The above mentioned conduct was the n pickets. he Union’s Lawrence Stoltz testified pickets were of the Local and that the

was President acting or H. under his direction. James Small, helped ganizer run he for the also testified that picket pickets.* line and instructed To summarize: It clear that below justified issuing preliminary to restrain way picketing it was in a because conducted blocking en- which included intimidation, coercion, trances and threatened violence exits, vandalism, and jeopardized public (2) safety, which order and and appellants agents. of How- was conduct and their preliminary injunction Court believes that ever, too and therefore was broad it is modified to restrain agents persons their and other block- from defendants, ing and and from of intimida- entrances exits all acts violence threats which vandalism, violence tion, public safety public jeopardize affect order. appellants’ affirmed as at modified, costs. Decree, * any pickets of course denied that re- Both witnesses were any unjustifiable sponsible or for other for the vandalism City by credulity It Line’s witnesses. strains our described conduct vandalism, this unlawful threats and violence to believe by by strangers, men from Mars unknown committed us believe. have would Union Opinion by

Dissenting Mr. Jones: Justice I in the with the enunciated agree principles law majority opinion. examination my However, con- proven record leads me to the conclusion that char- duct of complaint is made is not of such acter as to a state court under United give jurisdiction Construction Corp., Workers v. Laburnum Construction Ct. Automobile S. 833 and United Workers v. Ct. 932. Russell, 78 S.

Dissenting Opinion by Mr. : Justice Cohen There is such an abundance of excellent writ- legal on the re- ing problem of state jurisdiction over labor it lations require seems a waste of time to reading opinion in order lengthy majority discover that equates the decision contacts the petty by disclosed the evidence as “conduct marked vio- lence and imminent threats to order.” public

At this late date it should surprise come as no the Bar that has Congress preempted subject activities to the NLRA and that Supreme Court of Unit- ed despite presence of States, activities potentially permitted subject has retain NLRA, states to jurisdiction power regulate as matter of their (1) own state law conduct of “merely peripheral con- cern” to the Federal and (2) conduct Act, “marked and imminent violence to the public order”, under suit section 301 of (3) the Taft-Hartley Act on a collective contract between a union and an *and the enforcement of an employer,1 shop agency contract that violates a state applicable law to such virtue Section 14(b) contract the NLRA. I can not conclude as the majority does that the ac- dispute in this labor generated tivities sufficient “vio- only applied Federal law5 by la would situation tMs court. state so public

lence to the and imminent order” jurisdiction. create state I dissent.

Dissenting Eagen: Opinion Me. Justice correctly opinion scholarly majority The able and in difficult states the- law. clarification That field needed is indicated urgently clearly recent cases this Court in .presented numerous confusion which manifest patently existing months, jurisdictional and bar on minds the-bench question pres- involved. of the record ...A reading be- point ent court proceeding proves below yond argument. I cannot after careful

However, very consideration, rec opinion because I believe join majority does, The ord not support facts .recited therein. not does establish that the serious acts testimony complained were committed the defend violence guilt ants. Their be assumed because of sus cannot The evi picious only circumstances. acts, are of a trivi defendants, very dence connects with to an clearly must be right al nature. It on should issue the basis guess established. Terrizzi Bev. Co. v. Local Union See, or conjecture. 184 A. 2d 243 (1962). 408 Pa. 380, No. 830, Philadelphia Transportation Theriot Company, Appellant. 1963. November J., Before. C. Bell, Mus-

Argued JJ. O’Beien Cohen, Jones, Robeets, . manno,

Case Details

Case Name: City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees' Union

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jan 21, 1964

Citation: 413 Pa. 420

Docket Number: Appeal, 184

Court Abbreviation: Pa.