*1 145

necessary appellate in aid of its For the assigned, reasons the writs are supervisory jurisdiction.” peremptory; made judgment rendered Echezebal, the Honorable Frank T. plain language this Under Judge of Section “D” of the Criminal Dis- provision Constitution, Criminal trict Court for Orleans, the Parish of District Court for the Parish of Orleans aside; exceptions reversed set unquestionably supervisory general has jurisdiction of the Criminal District jurisdiction over the Traffic Court and Court for the Parish of Orleans are over- ample authority to issue the therefore had ruled and the case is remanded to the supervisory proceed writs and review lower court to be heard the rule is- ings. sued the Honorable Hertz, Neils F. Judge Section “F” of the Criminal Dis- provision This later of the Constitu trict Court for the Parish Orleans, any way impair gen tion does not in hereby reinstated, which rule is and dis- jurisdiction supervisory eral of this Court. posed of according to law. why people We know of no reason could Constitution, not amend the as done in this

case, supervisory powers grant to the in this nothing There is

District Court.

provision Constitution indicate any infringe up

that there was intention to 78 So.2d 673 jurisdiction nothing on our and there is prevent any issuing writs Court SUGARS, GODCHAUX Inc. any may necessary. at time that it deem v. respondent City cites the cases of Paul CHAISSON et al. Rossner, 117, Gretna v. 154 La. 97 So. 335 The SOUTH COAST CORPORATION Allen, and Allen v. La. So. v. any ap- 648. Neither of these cases have plication prior Paul CHAISSON et al. were decided adoption of the amendment of the Con- No. 41569. stitution the Traffic creating Court 1952. Jan. case, In Rossner District Court was Rehearing Denied Feb. granted by general the Constitution supervisory jurisdiction. case, the Allen Appeal granted by Court was not general supervisory jurisdic-

Constitution

tion.

Dodd, Barker, Hirch Orleans, & New appellant. Harvey Peltier and Peltier, Donald Thi- bodeaux; Milling, Saal, Saunders, Benson & Baldwin, Woodard and Haspel & Molo- ny Orleans; appellee. New FOURNET, Chief Justice. plaintiff corporations The in these con- cases, solidated Godchaux Sugars and Coast, alleging they South each own and operate large plantations, sugar mills, and public policy interest, contrary public con and in Louisiana1 in south refineries and, particularly, state, more trade in the engaged therewith nection Article XIX of 14 of violation of Section grow cultivating, planting, business and the stat of 1921 the LSA-Constitution and buying, processing, harvesting, ing, by-products, pursuant thereto. sugars adopted and using raw selling or utes the state sugar selling refined refining and well as named alleges the petition further The suits instituted by-products, and acting in concert defendants and others 2 individual named defendants restrain plaintiff and too (unknown with them employees officers, and ly agents, and as in this con joined numerous to name) Sugar Work as the known organization an purpose of spiracy or combination for Agricul the National 317 of ers Local No. recognize Sugar plaintiffs to compelling pursu (AFL), Union tural Workers representa 317 as the Local No. Workers damage designed of action ing a course agricul agent of the bargaining and tive business, and trade petitioners in their plantations, employees tural' stifling com prevent them from also artifice, force, intimidation, end, by to that interrupt interfering with petition by intimidation, force, as well threats plaintiffs and business ing the trade time, other permitting bodily injury, agricultural induced the work while, at the same operate mills, plantation refineries ers on the to cease work through growers, alleged interference, all of which “strike” guise of a so-called without conspiracy or combina shortly of a result timed come after the to be the commence trade, inimical to the sugar ment of cane season, in restraint harvesting tion plantations in Lafour owns named defendants Godehaux Godehaux Assumption, Ghaisson, che, John St. Paul case are: La- Vanton processing rousse, parishes; Epps, Baptist David, Henry La mills in Isaac Octave Baptist; Hasiwar, Lapeyrolerie, and a John and St. B. Frank fourche Felix Baptist. refinery Dugas, Tony Hogan, in St. John the Cleveland Domini- grinding factory que, Sylvan, Larouse, at mill is located Clarence Andrew Its parish Larouse, Ockman, Lafourche where Nilton Luse Willie Baceland arose, Campbell, Washington, and it has five action Bobert L. Bo- cause J. this plantations ' parish, lette, where cane is in this Louis Guidroz. Barilleaux, Na- Nelson Baceland, Utopia, Mary quin, Joseph e., Guidry grown, Plan i. Alton *4 Scudday. Ten, Upper tation, and were also named but the suit as South to them operates plantations and in was dismissed as of non-suit owns because of Coast Mary Lafourche, Par serve Terrebonne and St. failure to citation. The de- named processing ishes; mills Terre in the South fendants Coast cane ease are: sugar refinery Chaisson, Henry Mary, Hasiwar, and a Paul E. and St. Frank bonne refinery factory Lapeyrolerie, Dugas, Joseph Guidry, and Felix Its Lafourche. Adams, Mathews, Adams, is located at Gabe sel, Jesse Bous- Albert in Lafourche parish Edgar Keller,. Ledet, plantations in this Pecan Narwed Louis its Tree, Hope, Perkins, Georgia, Ingram, Place, Willie Home New Volcar Domini- Gayosa. que, Larousse, Alley Naquin. Victor -and Thirteenth, would knowing such action Fourteenth Amendments the defendants irrepa- States, plaintiffs to immediate Constitution of United cause the 3, perishable crop 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, a well as injury cane is Sections and 9 since rable processed with- of I harvested and Article of the 1921 that must be Constitution Louisiana, space of be lost. relatively time or LSA. in a short defend- Additionally, alleged these it judge recognized right The trial of the placed pickets at the entrances ants organize the defendants to for collective (including refineries the railroad mills purposes, bargaining their right and also employees working crossings), where employer to strike in order recog- secure to bargaining agreements with collective negotiation. concluded, nition and He how- containing strike” “no another union ever, stoppage work at picket- clauses, specific objective of such factories and refineries during harvesting employees breach being to cause these ing vitally important season so to the econ- damage agreements. The the “no strike” omy public of the state and to the interest they have resulting plaintffs, for which that it is tantamount to a serious and un- adequate remedy law, alleged to at no precedented emergency that transcends incapable immediate, irreparable, and right picket of the defendants to ascertainment, although tantamount compel mills to recognition the organ- destruction of their businesses. workers, ization of the field right and their respect in this must be restricted. He of ex- The defendants filed number accordingly judgment permanent- rendered re- ceptions pleas, all which were ly enjoining defendants, activities of the They answered, then ferred the merits. individually and as officers and members of the denying generally allegations of Local refinery, affirmatively petition, although plantations factories and plaintiffs Sugar averred the members of Workers parish; physical threatening Lafourche Local 317 voted to strike engage and did harm, injury plaintiffs, damage or to. the in a strike or activity concerted against the employees property; their conspiring plaintiffs beginning 12, 19S3, on October damage plaintiffs in their trade or have, time, since that withheld their securing recog- business for employers. services from They asserted persuad- organization; of their nition right engage in a strike and to employees inducing any peacefully picket, literature, distribute refinery plaintiffs at and factories to assemble, and to employees peti- induce refrain in violation of exist- working from by peaceful tioners means to refrain from ing bargaining agreements nego- collective working or to refrain returning to tiated with locals affiliated with the CIO ,. protected by First, Fifth, appealed... work is The defendants have *5 156 155 counsel, neces- defendant-appellants pointed will be out where as In their brief sary. un- Local an contending (1) association, members incorporated its conditions, By reason of weather and soil sued, served, by suit bound cannot be or largely industry is Louisiana’s cane and officers members against its individual parishes, concentrated in 123 our of acts; (2) as in the absence of tortious cul acreage cropland available right to a they have agricultural workers 22,706.3 tivation therein acres ranging from legal economic take all organize and to parish Baptist in St. John recog- employer steps necessary to secure 75,695 Iberia, is though acres in there publi- including the negotiation, nition and parishes, considerable other acreage picketing of dispute by the cizing of their ranging Feliciana from 50 East acres offending premise business of a or 17,040.3 Lafayette. Parish to In acres by employees manned employer parishes these 21 referred —sometimes agree- bargaining collective covered Louisiana, as the Sugar Cane bor Belt “no containing a union with another ment were, dering, as it Missis both sides of the can- clause, (3) such strike” sippi extending River and into reaches illegal in the absence of enjoined not be of its delta lands in the extreme south-cen unlawful an methods part tral were, state —there injury only loss and though it causes according to official records inde secured entire employer commu- but to pendently by from the the court United event, injunc- they assert any nity. In 549,045.1 Department Agriculture, States specific fit the too broad to tion issued cropland, acreage though acres of the actual “tai- and should be situation needs cultivation, because control accordingly. lored” through government allocations under the may thus raised Sugar the issues order that Act 1100-1160, In 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 304,077.2 for discussion correct focus brought into amounted to be acreage acres. This necessary that the decision, events 4,010 throughout distributed farms enjoined picketing, as up plantations, leading ranging in size from and/or industry in- background 1,000 as the 0.1 well acres to They over. economy importance operated 7,540 its growers some volved planting state, to the well as owners, communities basis, local individual on a share-crop impor- In certain detail. in some given arrangements, under some other such as stipulated been aspects this has joint tant venture. Iberia, Iberville, Avoyelles, Assumption, Ascension, Rouge, East Baton East Feli- James, ciana, Coupee, Rapides, Lafourche, Lafayette, Charles, St. Pointe St. Baptist, Martin, Mary, Landry, Vermilion, St. St. St. John the West St. Feliciana. Kouge. Terrebonne, Baton West 5,758,846.9 some price of cane the tons grower for his is to receive

grown processed cane, in this state were into the working agri conditions of the 67,872.4 sugar and some tons were marketed cultural farms, laborers on these and their syrup. For grinding of this tremen- minimum standard wages.5 *6 tonnage dous only there were 54 mills and In cane, certain by sections the reason for the processing product only the raw conditions, favorable may weather be Lafourche, refineries. Parish the year harvested round, Hawaii, the as arose, where this case only there were 5 or over a period, six-month inas Florida. mills and 1 refinery, planted while the In Louisiana, however, precarious due to acreage yielded 609,936.5 that parish factors, weather the harvesting is season tons. extremely short. The cane is not suffi- apparent It is from figures ciently “ripe” that the for harvesting until some sugar cane industry is of im- tremendous time near the middle of From October. portance to economy parishes the that time the harvesting the cane ais within the Belt. It is so vital to the time, wel- race against for the first frost or fare of those living in this any section that freeze that falls before the cane is cut will industry threat to the destroy is a threat to the crop. Additionally, the im- it is economy and harvested, welfare of the entire commu- perative cane, that the be once nity. Indeed, parishes only in many it not put is through possible, the mills as soon one largest industries, only for, it the is agricultural products, unlike other cane Industry. refrigerated. cannot be stored or For reason, harvesting period the during has, government many years, for operate interruption mills without a industry controlled the sugar cane in this schedule; continuous 24-hour the mill own- state (as has in other also states and own only ers not the cane from their grind territories) provisions farms, many the cane hundreds but also 903, Sugar Act of 50 Stat. and the who have no mills and of small farmers Sugar ofAct 61 Stat. U.S.C.A. upon dependent these mills totally are who hearing, At a is 1100-1160. which held §§ product; processing of their other- annually Thibodaux, Louisiana, too, be a wise, crop, will total loss. by government quota determines alloca- tions, ably acreage cropland This very impressively pointed of available is planted any by judge be and cultivated in out the trial that is to in his written reasons year refusing in this state. It also determines sustain given to the defendants’ ex- testimony controls, industry price is to effect that can- There ment’s wages paid pay higher wages agricultural are laborers not continue to standpoint. an of this minimum standard and also economic excess function govern- effect that because 16Q * * *

ceptions crop the tem- son. If dissolve an entire Were and motion to order, borne out be lost because of porary failure to harvest and restraining states, process it, judge would be no left for trial there cane As the record. sugar crop planting succeeding processing of a because growing "The like the cane semi-tropical section is stalks themselves constitute the cane in this that it industry planting.” seed used in He characterized no in the sense other factory sugar indefinite- possible sugar harvesting annual cane close processing resume emergency,” an “annual ly harvesting season during the off, disruption “irrepa- left operations presage thereof as a where plants. manufacturing damage.” rable any He held affirmative the case in most fact deter, prevent act emphasized disrupt, intended to difference is This operations such processing “wrongful,” likening these growing area, operations port operations. In this make joint vessel that must cane are as un- processing is within a time limited or be lost harvesting without The two ravages law. liberty without of the elements. thinkable as is not Harvesting time inseparable. Counsel for defendants concede this choice, but purely individual a matter of true, stipulation for in a signed them *7 beyond upon conditions depends natural it is harvesting stated: sugar “The of cane comes, time harvesting When control. must be Louisiana commenced South or it expeditiously harvested must be cane October, depending around the middle of depre- damaging the eventually suffer will upon maturity the crop. of the Once com- become a freezing weather dations menced, proceed such harvesting must proc- harvested, it must be When loss. total expeditiously possible the because unless delay or suffer reasonable within a essed crop is harvested weather before adverse important consider- A most deterioration. conditions, occur, freeze, heavy such is cane sugar growing the is that ation crop part, wholly can be lost Economical operation. one-year not a destroyed. crop In order to save the when involve not does cane profitable production harvested, indispensable it that it be season, depends crop but planting each promptly, days within 4 S the cane after upon production generally of at least cut, processed sugar into and molasses crops planting.” from one Contin- three mill, at a grinding and be- or will sour “exposure points he out freez- uing, come unfit for there no processing. If subsequent ing souring weather operation grinding mill in for and available cane causes a deterioration cane,., processing of the harvested in the stool of the below cane deterioration crop remaining unprocessed inevitably consequent o'f the will ground, and a the surface lost,”. j production ensuing crop in the loss in sea- be polled plain- The record further shows that the and voted 1808to 8 in favor of strik had,- many years, ing. tiffs in growers these cases for en- The officially were never no bargaining agreements tered into with local tified of action, this strike but letters were organizations covering union later CIO addressed to 23 growers re refineries, the workers in the mills questing a meeting, but never this material laborers, which were classed as industrial ized. Soon operations after harvesting be and, importance recognizing and, keeping gan, according to the testimony of the operation during principal these mills in continuous organizer, Henry Hasiwar, at E. time, upon crucial had insisted the in- a this time contrived disrupt to hinder and pledg- in these contracts of clauses processing cane, clusion a strike was called during against the workers not to strike employers of the 23 that had been requested existence of the contracts. These contracts repre to meet with the Union prior never violated to 1953. were sentatives. As a result between and 75 percent of the farm failed to re laborers early repre During the months of 1953 work, port many with the result Agricultural the National sentatives of hundreds of tons of cane were left to “sour” Union, an affiliate of the American Workers in the fields. Labor, sent among Federation Sugar Cane agricultural laborers in the 16, 1953, On October the workers in the purportedly organized Local No. Belt mills and refineries were advised Union 317, an Union into five area-wide divided letter that progress a strike was in in the requested July these districts.6 officials cooperation requested. fields plaintiffs) that 9 of Louisi (including the appeal: letter closed with the “You 7,540 growers meet them for ana’s Although know what to do.” no effort was purposes a collective bar negotiating organization picket ever made growers gaining agreement and when plantations, night, midnight, around comply refused to with this demand picket the field laborers threw a line around Labor, Department the re Louisiana at the Raceland mill of Godchaux and the Union, meeting quest of called in that mill union workers refused to cross securing conciliation. When For reasons that these lines. clearly meeting employers failed to attend *8 membership allegedly record, was of the Union this reflected line was short- governing conciliation, apparently mediation, for the deci- conceded 6. It sions disputes raised this case that of labor and arbitration sion and the issues legally organization Department authority, constituted. of Labor had no this therefore, compel meeting. such a specifically Agricultural laborers (LSA-R.S. 23:861-23:876, particular- and from the definition an “em- of excluded ly Paragraph 862.) 2 of Section statutory provi- ployee” in Louisiana’s Í63 picket factory, and resi- lines left their and workers withdrawn

ly thereafter beyond pick- point and dences went to the mills. returned to lines and thereafter refused cross et fur- were factory workers The mill picket report work time lines to for at the al- by letters Union circularized ther appointed particular As a their shift.” aware he was testified though Hasiwar report result of such failure or refusal to continuing importance of the critical work, kept operation the factories were the workers the mills operation of period for a 20 hours between pro- agreements employed under there were only factory virtue the fact some picket- scale strikes, full he ordered hibiting beyond time workers remained at work factories these around ing operations helped independ- of their shift were object He first stated October experi- previous factory ent farmers the existence publicize towas picketing picketing At first laborers ence. field He ad- fields. dispute in the labor actively assisted officials however, cross-examination, mitted under local the mill work- representing CIO activity in this guided was Union that the ers, provisions in specific in violation of most effective estimation by its own bargaining agreements their effect to the pres- force economic exert moment they that if did not order workers compel recogni- employers to on the sure jobs return to their their action would he had he felt laborers field tion of the considered a agreement. violation of the very critical during this a better chance prevent To the shut-down of the factories conceded, fact, period. He grinding during period this crucial and the resulting to shut object of the was the real irreparable damage to themselves and the operation the mills. down the small dependent farmers upon these mills effective, despite strategy His for the grinding and processing of their agree- specific provisions in their collective cane, as well as to relieve the workers who prohibiting the mill workers ments had remained at posts their in the mills dur- or conditions any all circumstances hours, long plaintiffs, late in the nature, any sit- in strikes of engaging afternoon of October 1953, secured a downs, sympathy strikes or stoppages under temporary restraining order. When this seniority rights loss threat of and sum- was later permanent confirmed as a injunc- majority mary discharge, of the work- tion, despite protests of the defendants, picket to cross refused ers lines. As appealed. points out, judge trial some of these factory “residing workers on. the property first contention relied on for Coast) picket lines, (that (South within the reversal an unincorporated associa places of being residence between the tion and its members cannot be sued or *9 through served individual members or of Additionally, particularly we think ficers) clearly pertinent without This issue merit. appropriate and here the remarks under an identical factual situation8 was of the trial judge to the effect adversely decided to the defendants in “time is of the essence in the nature of the Douglas Corp. Gaspard, Public Service v. prayed relief for in (and) this case to re argu La. 182. Counsel’s 74 So.2d quire the ascertainment of individual mem Douglas ment that the in decision Pub bership of an unincorporated association Corp. application lic Service case has no and thereafter individual citation as condi proved here were not since defendants precedent tions relief,— to the granting of comes, in engaged to have tortious acts we and thereby require plaintiffs gather in violence, think, threats, grace ill since formation exclusively almost within the only alleged, and intimidation were not but knowledge defendants, without whose prove numerous witnesses were available to help it impracticable would be perhaps only they ex allegations and were impossible gather, and from whom cused when counsel for defendants conced hindrance obstruction, rather than co ed, time, saving for the that if operation, could reasonably anticipated, be restraining to issue it should a order were —would be a tantamount to denial of relief. person prop harm to cover violence and To hold unincorporated that an group must particularly erty, so since the and more individually be named and cited before plaintiffs only acquiesced therein with the susceptible to restraint equivalent would be they thereby were not wait understanding that, to holding by subterfuge of unincor relinquishing rights under these ing or their poration, group action transcends individual concession on Such allegations of violence. rights and is unlimited and unrestrictable defendants, while part of counsel except purview within the of the criminal testimony necessity hearing obviating the statute, corporations or that unauthorized also allegations, was to substantiate these by law cannot be restrained from doing ir violence an admission that tantamount reparable injury except have, fact, through process dur occurred and tortious acts dispute, on this of this the course individual identification. We cannot in injunc alone, the issuance of ground good conscience or sound logic reach that justified Douglas tion would conclusion in the face alleged irrepa Corp. decision. injury.” Public Service rable individually members, twenty-one and as sued of- defendants were

8. There ficers, agents of Local but it was who were named sued in- case specifically during officers, admitted dividually agents, the trial that and as they fact, members, and, officers and of the Oil Workers International members actively engaged picketing re- Union, Local No. affiliated with Here, only strained. the defendants were CIO. pressing it. a But while is mode defendants— next contention organize some inseparably communication it is right to have compel recogni- thing picket more and Industrial pressure to economic exert different. dispute by ing speech, it in ‘is more than free since tion, including publicizing organized particular locality patrol volves manned mills picketing the *10 strike, presence may very picket line since the a pledged not to workers of another, quite com- the entire induce kind employer action one or though the of predi- irrespective injured which of the nature ideas irreparably of munity be —is * * * theory that such upon being are disseminated.’ Publica cated, primarily, of right newspaper, by of their tion in a or distribution of the assertion picketing is by feder- circulars, may convey the same information speech guaranteed freedom of such, and, can- pa charge do make the same those constitution al state legal picket very is the means long trolling a line. But the enjoined so not be influences, line is to exert purpose sought picket lawful. of produces consequences, different from Su States United that the is true It loyal communication. The other modes of speech, picketing preme has likened Court responses by and exacted ties and evoked enunciat as first analogy sweeping but this flowing lines unlike picket those Alabama, 310 of State v. ed in Thornhill * **, by printed appeals word. How 1093, has 736, L.Ed. 88, S.Ct. U.S. opin language loose the. general or ever restricted. refined greatly been since ions, specific have situations controlled State Court Superior v. Hughes amply recognised has been It decision. 721, 718, 460, 70 S.Ct. California, 339 U.S. equivalent being not picketing, that Supreme United States 94 L.Ed. fact, not its inevit speech as matter of action the state court’s Court, sanctioning Picketing not legal be equivalent. able compel peaceful picketing enjoining if of a State the manner yond the control hiring that subverted proportional racial picketing pur is conducted or in which public policy as state’s and contravened gives to effectuate pose it seeks which declared, ‘“(T)he judicially said: domain * ** ‘A disallowance. for its ground by liberty, the Fourteenth withdrawn places tolerate in all required not state is from encroachment Amendment picket peaceful circumstances even * and all * * liberty states,' no doubt induces ”9 * * added.) (Emphasis *.’ appropriate means for ex- thought practice warranting discharge Supreme of the has States Court United 9. The offending employee. See, National Labor approved of “no inclusion strike” the bargaining agreements Sup Rockaway Board v. News has Relations clauses Inc., Co., ply 344 U.S. 73 S.Ot. refusal breach of such clauses picket held an labor 669. The record' in the L.Ed. lines unfair cross already very Inasmuch concluded but we succinctly pointed as we have also out that “by picketing that the was manner in which this same guarantees constitutional foregoing rights make illegal laborer, conducted was secure for the authorities, employer is the the defendants’ contention is also he insured will not be deprived question property of his except by without merit. But we think due process posed importance here that we of law is of such and that the courts shall concede, open may that be argument, protection for the sake of him for the his rights.” legal. This the manner of very ques- vital

focuses for our decision is, decision, whether remaining tion The testimony in the record con asser- public policy permits the clusively the state’s and, indeed, it is ad establishes — picket organize and right tion of the mitted the defendants —that because of the econ- expense of recognition at the the short season in pe Louisiana and the entirely state, omy the risk and at culiar urgency surrounding the harvesting the state’s one of wiping out destroying very perishable crop, any action that principal industries. has object for its closing vitally

important mills during this crucial period will only Public court, Douglas destroy This crop entire of a *11 972, year, given but, Corp. Gaspard, 225 La. 74 Service v. because of spoilage in the fields, 187, the 182, destroy “that laborer will recognized the crops So.2d of the next working years. con two succeeding effort to better in his secure We cannot close eyes right well within his our to the wages ditions and fact that such action would any tantamount to organize, bargain, and to take be the total to destruction of industry, lawfully accomplish industry this steps no and all needful can sustain end, three-year such terrific losses over a including picketing,”10 likening period this economically. still survive speech, The right religion, this to freedom of eventu repercussions economy the liberty itself, al on life and all of which the state, particularly parishes on those happiness; are essential to the pursuit clearly respect grievance wages instant ease discloses the indus- with to those apparent complaint (there trial mill workers refused to cross the is no picket up by working conditions) respect line thrown the field workers to the ais despite purview the inclusion of “no strike” clauses within matter that comes the bargaining agreements. authority presented in their that and should be aggrieved the laborers at the annual industry 10. Inasmuch as the cane hearings, particularly since it is attested government, controlled the federal industry that the stand cannot increased acreage which determines the to be wages unless there is in- commensurate price paid planted, cane, the for the prices paid growers crease in the working laborers, conditions of the their cane. wages, any. their it would that seem hampered the their granting court relief beggar contem- Belt, tiie would within guarantee protection constitutional freedom plation. guarantees protection speech would amount to no at all and are speech, picketing even if would, prop- actually, deprive them of their identical, be maintained cannot be held to erty process without due law. These irreparable injury to face such exceptions are, therefore, compelled without merit. economy and we property therefore, hold, that rely The defendants the cases of the circum- under the defendants mills of Milk Wagon Chicago, Drivers Union of pub- contrary to here established stances Dairies, Local v. Meadowmoor 312 U.S. judge was trial that policy and lic 287, 552, 836, and Build- S.Ct. L.Ed. injunctions. issuing justified Employees ing Service Local Intern. Union Gazzam, 262 v. argument,11 the de 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. court, in oral support prematurity 94 plea argument L.Ed. their renewed fendants that upon the contention “Even if court un- were to find exceptions based pro lawful methods or an to follow unlawful plaintiffs failed injunction :849 contravened 23:841-23 the defendants’ set in LSA-R.S. cedure out rights La Little and should have been tailored to fit (commonly referred specific needs of the injunctive seeking situation.” prior to Act) Guardia relief. Counsel has point failed to out in respect what judgment of the lower Douglas Public Service

In the requires “tailoring” court beyond quoting legislative stat held that Corp. case we excerpts from these that, cases in them procedural rules for ob prescribing utes selves, disclose have application no processes would writs and taining needful the factual situation here presented. they did not violate upheld long as so' acts, law, that such whether but our basic For assigned, the reasons judgments substantive, infringing or procedural or appealed affirmed, from are at the cost of upon preroga constitutional trenching the defendants. courts, could stand. As tives of HAMITER, J., concurs in the decree. case, it the facts here is evident statutory provisions resort to these HAWTHORNE, J., concurs with written effect, would, in have closed the doors of reasons. *12 plaintiffs seeking the relief courts to the HAWTHORNE, (concurring). irreparable injury impending well Justice from private property of the I am destruction of the view that plea defendants’ Additionally, prematurity would have rights. exceptions so and their up- based points

11. These have not in been written mentioned brief. 173 174 -on the fact plaintiffs failed PER CURIAM. procedural requirements

follow the set out In their application for rehearing the in 23:841-23:849, R.S. commonly referred are, defendants time, for the first and con to as the Act”, “Little Norris-LaGuardia trary to the rules of this court and the before seeking injunctive relief should be jurisprudence thereof,1 seeking to raise sustained. Federal constitutional issues that were not passed raised or my on when the case was dissenting opinion Douglas in Pub- originally us, before Corp. 972, Service contention now Gaspard, lic 225 v. La. being that 182, though employed il 74 So.2d I I not agree stated that did legal purposes means and in holding majority with this labor dis of this pute, injunctions requirements by procedural issued court that the dis unconstitutional, judge trict by the statute affirmed us and I nevertheless fully infringes my deprives set out there the reasons for otherwise them view. rights certain opinion. However, guaranteed I still by am claimed to same and, one, the Federal my minority view is a under the constitution. jurisprudence of this court as established in most, contention, developed This in a in case, this Douglas case and in the stat- manner, genuous would lead the reader up procedural utory provisions setting to understand or believe defendants are unconstitutional. There- requirements enjoined were forever lower court fore, no it would serve since striking, and organizing, peacefully from me to thing a vain for would be continue plantations and mills dissent, majority I subscribe to hold- we, affirming plaintiffs, and this de holding only because now effect, cree, on the basis of a held kind, in cases of this this state

law doctrine emergency local raised so-called majority will hope in time time,2 public that the the first us position its error and reverse its realize agricultural prohibits this state policy of matter. they happen laborers, merely because to be crops, perishable working with exer Application Rehearing

On right strike, their constitutional cising court, adopt 2 X of Rule of this 1. Section Estopinal, v. Godchaux Co. further See 4, 1951, effect since October ed 116, 179, L.Ed. 251 U.S. S.Ct. 213. also, January 1, See, v. 1952. Sorbe 185; Right Co., Ins. La. Merchants’ judgment contrary, To the 330; Phelps, v. 1 Rob. Garland v. court, judge’s as reflected lower 405; Stephens Holmes, 1 La.Ann. v. extensively quoted opin- in our reasons Duckett, 111 La. So. ion, predicated this same founda- Murtagh Dept. City ex rel. v. State tion. Service, La. 42 So.2d Civil *13 n any picket, legal steps'necessary to take to secure peacefully economic to and/or wages employer negotiation, better in legal recognition action to secure and effective Finally, by and with -cluding publicizing dispute the of their conditions. working and specific com any way picketing premise their the a in of or of detailing business out they thereto, the respect employer claim offending by the plaints that manned with scope, employees in too broad by covered a bargain issued collective injunction as or “tailor” ing to agreement failure and, of our another union contain because * * * de same, been “they clause,3 have a strike’ the ‘no and “clarify” rights picketing enjoined constitutional basic such cannot be in the of their prived having been even without absence illegal methods or an guarantees and itnlawful lawof a court hearing before purpose though it causes loss and in afforded rights.” legal their jury only employer the but to the determination final in community.” (Emphasis

entire supplied.) matters these as Inasmuch any If there were doubt as to this issue application time first for the being raised correctly opinion, being stated the we in-r would, ordinarily, court rehearing, quotation vite attention to the following summarily with application the dispose of pages from 10 and 11 of the brief de consideration, the au under further out the fendants “In absence : of unlawful However, No. 1. in footnote cited thorities purposes4 methods or pro the unlawful ap by the created confusion the clear the hibition of and other ac minds to disabuse plication per embraced in tivities of defendants fears, claimed toas applicants contrary injunctions was manent to the law reflects, in opinion apt to observe policy public of Louisiana and in der assigned only errors 4, the Paragraph rights ogation constitutional decree appealing defendants the Constitution defendants pertinent far in so court district (Em of Louisiana.” United States then objections crux here —and phasis supplied.) de judgment at that levelled —is n * * * therefore, Clearly, specific under the as- workers fendants, agricultural “as all take organize made right signments of error defendants have Although appellees pleadings, during now maintain in their defendants attempt court, ap- did not to and enlist the lower trial in the the peal did not position the union em- assistance of here took the aid both mills, encourage purposes employed them ployees in the and the methods testimony that, illegal strike, accordingly, tlie the record were no contrary true;- question to be federal constitutional establishes among em- the circulation raised. does ployees issued several letters enlisting support. their active Local precisely prescribed themselves, they “Even were to thus court if find unlawful on, requested pass methods or we an the in- were the issues unlawful pur- junction e., rights the methods and contravened the or not i. whether defendants’ lawful, legal and on this and should have been tailored poses fit " specific these activities (Emphasis found a fact needs the situation issue we illegal. supplied.) were unlawful and *14 application they In their rehearing for applicants to show The of effort point any specific right do not to we have to the decision is the effect of court’s pass failed or refused to on that was of “because this class of laborers forbid to They just raised. do not in what tell us they engaged in are happenstance that the way they have in- would us “tailor” the processing in farm work and junction. Instead, they gen- resort to crop, constitu fundamental perishable in fairly eralities which are summarized say least when to trite right,” tional Paragraph application as fol- their clearly and opinion which one reads lows : unmistakably did the trial recognizes, as urge regard- “Defendants the court that agricultural workers right judge, less of the in- determination of the issues strike, and to organize, to to and laborers volved herein as relate to the and collective recognition picket to secure plaintiffs’ sites, plant and mills different working wages and bargaining better are in issues raised relation to the balance point out that this did But we conditions. injunctive by order issued the district all other paramount to right be cannot court and that these are vital to de- “ issues same constitutional ‘by the rights for fendants’ constitutional freedoms rights secure make guarantees, court, finally be should determined laborer, employer also insured for the present opinion judgment that the property his deprived of be will not he disposition adequately do not state and that process of law except due pleas arguments defendants’ that the protec him for open to shall courts injunction violates right court district ” rights.’ his

tion of speech, assembly, organization of free strike.” complaint, respect The to the final issued,

scope injunction above, applicants shown As thus at- application vague in the as it rehearing argue issues not tempting heretofore original hearing, further, as evidenced on, and, was on passed issues that or raised law brief, e., fact in since the original in no basis the sole comment i. have join “right sympathize application, with their cause'and As stated pressure bringing picket on the in an economic strike effort employer.” persuade working or induce other men (af- lower court injunctive decree necessity, dealt with appeal), of

firmed on the time of at existing

the conditions not intended It was

application therefor. except give relief in fact did not

to and then, they existed conditions

as to stoppage at is, prevent work during refineries factories ended, 1953,which season

harvest season record, late in De- either to the

according early January

cember intended was never injunction The beyond that in fact extend did will reflect. opinion period, as

crucial is denied. rehearing application for *15 So.2d 825 Louisiana

STATE

v. COMPANY. GAS LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

No. 42114.

Feb.