*1 to act therein must be grant authority given widest within the possible scope limitations of reasonable construction of the legislative language.
Eor the stated, we reasons hold that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has hear and jurisdiction to deter mine complaints N. J. 2A :100-2 in where under S. cases the accused voluntarily and waives his understandingly to indictment trial to have the matter jury agrees of in disposed Therefore, that court. the determination of reversed, Law Division is original judgment affirmed, trial court is and the writ habeas is dis corpus charged.
For reversal —Chief Justice and Justices Weintraub, Burling, Erancis, Jacobs, Proctor, Hall and Sci-iet- TINO—7.
For affirmance —None. HIGHTSTOWN, INDEPENDENT DAIRY OF WORKERS UNION AL., INTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, MILK ET PLA 680, DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES No. LOCAL AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, ET AND DECKERS DAIRY, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Argued April 6 and 195 9 Decided June 1959. *4 Mr. L. Thomas Parsonnet the cause for argued defendants- Parsonnet, appellants (Messrs. & Weitzman Oransky, attor- Parsonnet, Mr. nejrs; Thomas L. of counsel).
Mr. Ernest Gross the cause for argued plaintiffs-respond- Gross, ents Weissberger & (Messrs. Mr. Spritzer, attorneys; Gross and Mr. Herbert W. Weissberger, of counsel).
Mr. Edward W. Currie the cause argued for defendant- respondent. of the opinion court was delivered by
Weintraub, C. J. The individual are plaintiffs of defendant Deckers Inc. Dairy, called (herein “Decker”) and constitute the union membership plaintiff (herein called “Independent Union”). Plaintiffs sued enjoin defendant union called “Local (herein 680”) and some of its members from Decker to coercing breach a made contract by Decker with the Independent Union as bargaining and to restrain agent Decker from abro- employees, from gating agreement or Local 680 recognizing as the n bargaining representative the contract during period. that Decker parties agree commerce; in intrastate engaged 'no one federal suggests preemption.
The matter came before first us by appeal from a -denial of injunctive pendente relief lite. This court ordered such relief. The stated in part that “The opinion case then to final in order to proceed full factual hearing develop background especially charge, unsupported by any us, that Independent before Union is proof manage ment product.” Independent Dairy Workers Union of v. Milk Drivers Hightstown Dairy Employees Local No. 23 N. J. commented (1956), upon L. Rev. The trial Rutgers court found (1957). and the final is now here on the plaintiffs, judgment appeal defendants, 680 and its member certified by us Division acted before the Appellate upon it.
178 it, farmers, milk from local processes
Decker purchases and stores, family restaurants and sells the products or sub-dealers. employees either its consumers through others engaged 680 represents employees Local by an employee In to an response inquiry same industry. in interest Decker, representing an expressed Local in of it. favor if a majority the employees produced Decker dismissed and we that found, The trial court agree, in Local 680. their interest four because the reinstate- addition to In seeking followed. Picketing Local demanded recog- of the men with back pay ment did not a represent even it nition contract though and a declined to accept any- the men. Local 680 majority contract, the posi- taking less than recognition a thing generated the men Decker by the unfair discharge tion that impossible. would be which a free election an atmosphere after the onset of Union was created The Independent the Honest Ballot At an election conducted picketing. Union Association, Independent reputable a organization, unanimously representative. chosen as bargaining was re- notice Local 680. Upon held without election was certification, Decker the Association’s recognized ceiving Union, two-year provision contract Independent Hotice of the contract annual renewals was negotiated. picket. which however continued was Local given premises It covered Decker’s peaceful. was The picketing the retail establishments which basis roving and well on as for the Local stipulated, Decker’s products. handled effective, was case, that its picketing of the present purpose to Decker and the individual harm economic resulting Union. of the Independent members above, appeal Local 680 upon prior noted urged As At was company-dominated. Union Independent 680 withdrew the issue. It as hearing gave the final seek this wished to a reconsideration by reason I, that Article appeal upon prior its holding court of Jersey, New forbade 19 of the Constitution paragraph *6 in the face of an election and a picketing recognition contract made with the representative of the employees’ choice. reason, Whatever the we must the that the accept premise is Union what its name Independent literally implies. add also that Local 680 did not in suit this the challenge validity election, of the either reason the of manner which it conducted was infection any consequent upon the of the wrongful four discharge employees. factual matter remaining for decision is the necessary for which the
purpose was conducted. In picketing its brief filed with us Local 680 states: testimony, “From of all this is clear that there were a number objectives picketing of They were, of distribution leaflets. (1) Reinstatement. Securing pay (2) discharges. of back for time lost to unfair due (3) bargaining- Execution of collective contract with Local 680. receipt notice, This was demanded until the date of the of the [sic, P-9, advising P-5 Ex Exhibit the letter Local 680 of the exe- Independent of cution the contract with the Union.] There is no subsequent date, evidence as to the of union demand the to that objective subject speculation.” (Emphasis thereafter added.) The trial court correctly found that initially picketing for the specific was three thus purposes claimed by Local 680 but that the first disappeared two before injunctive relief lite was and remained granted pendente non-existent at the final of the hearing. testimony discharged employees revealed plainly became permanently employed else- where and that none would consider reemployment with back unless would pay Decker also Local 680 recognize as the representative all the employees. We with the agree trial court that the issue final at was crystallized hearing factually into whether Local question which represented neither nor former employees employees interested rein- statement, picket compel a valid abrogation con- tract between and the employer Independent Union and 680 as recognition representative bargaining it did not in fact employees represent. 680’s statement of so much oí Local
We italicized above the making notice facts as following suggested “subject became objective contract picketing in the oral argu- Later in its brief and to speculation.” the discharged that after us Local 680 urged ment before above, the described assumed the final employees position deemed to have been to picketing should purpose toward seeking recog- view organize such issue the contract. No at expiration nition there to support Nor was evidence tendered at the trial. was fashion the questions in academic it. We cannot accept *7 present. may which that factual pattern I. 1947 19 of reads: I, the Constitution
Article paragraph right organize private employment to shall have the in “Persons public employment bargain collectively. have in shall Persons State, right organize, present or to the to and make known agencies, grievances any political subdivisions or their choosing.” through representatives proposals of their own a right the first sentence Local 680 agrees guarantees dis immediate but employer in their as against emplojrees to the intervention by strangers the view that it bars putes sentence the absence from the first relationship, stressing of their own representatives choosing” the phrase “through to some It points in the second sentence. which appears in which the work force of transitory employment situations selection of permit stable long enough not remain may It points men. from within employer’s a representative com employees concern the understandable further to and other wages maintenance with the employers peting be affected by which conditions of employment own men. employer a and his specific between arrangements S. 321, 326, 312 U. Swing, Labor v. American Federation of 855, 857 American Steel 568, Ed. (1941); 61 Ct. 85 L. 8. Council, 257 Trades U. S. Central Tri-City Foundries
181 184, 209, 72, 66 S. Ct. L. Ed. 200 (1921); Bayonne Workers, Textile v. American Corp. Federation Silk N. J. & Eq. (E. A. if 1934). It argues Constitution decision, be construed to make final there would be no room legislative for action the appro prescribing unit, and priate there should remain bargaining urges an open area for the In play views. its final state many ment, however, Local 680 reaches for the opposite pole, to wit, that the Constitution was intended establish beyond control legislative in all employees wage economic combat all against employers industry notwithstanding the free choice of the employee-unit concerned immediately under Thus, labor-management relationship. latter construction, a union which none of the represents involved could with a immediately contend rival union until the exhaustion of one of them or of the em ployer itself. We have no difficulty that con rejecting struction. The more whether I, Article imposing question first paragraph leaves area described above for open legislative judicial decision. issue, thus stated, constitutional may prove to be It is axiomatic that fundamental
far-reaching. issues should not be entertained unless a decision is imperatively required. We think the not us, issue is before thus reason that if it be assumed that are unaided plaintiffs *8 provision, they nonetheless are entitled to on the prevail facts before us.
II. Local 680 the be urges judiciary inert because it cannot provide mechanism to the task equal of and formulating a fair effectuating of pattern labor-management relations. It that less than a statute and an suggests nothing adminis- trative can contend and with agency the fairly expeditiously inevitable problems. indeed be Legislation may appropriate and surely would not be unwelcome. The considerations thus well emphasized be addressed the to might Legislature. it no-mans-
But is to the to create a contrary judicial grain land in and all controversies which the outcome of any It has would upon combatants. depend strength deal matters been the role of to traditional the courts relations, Court State Hughes Superior labor v. affecting 94 L. Ed. 460, 718, Ct. California, 339 U. S. 70 S. intervenes, the 985, 993 and until (1950), Legislature judicial remains. obligation
It beyond capacity not be assumed that is should which appellants to judiciary remedy wrongs in violation claimed. Eor the discharge employees I, 19 of the Constitu their under Article paragraph suit an and as well a tion, lie, well action damages may because to and forbid pay discharge reinstate with back to Co. of union & New Orleans Railroad See Texas activity. Clerks, 281 U. S. Steamship v. Brotherhood Railway Quinn 548, 50 see S. Ct. Ed. 1034 but L. (1930); Buchanan, Ct. 1957). 298 W. 2d Such Sup. S. 413 (Mo. would enforcement of the constitutional give guaranty them need permit pursue the assurance employees It free them to respond their own self-interest. would to seek terms industry improved others appeals of to the end that there employment conditions of employers eliminated competitive gained by advantages labor We here speak sub-standard through practices. to the between terms, without reference agreement general fact, and Decker. In we add paren ITnion Independent was thetically nothing there is to suggest contrary hurtful discrepancy. activated some by his that when testimony indicated of its by representative of Decker he interest an initially engaged employee was enter the scene unless that Local would not replied who Decker themselves produced majority desired union. membership 680 had the election also, question if Local wished to So Division Chancery unfair practice, because Decker’s It could ordered to the issue. have would have been equal
183 another election with such as would protective provisions be to appropriate assure an uncoerced result.
With respect before picketing, questions us are whether as a matter (A) of substantive law are plaintiffs entitled to protection conducted against peaceful picketing for the objective described, already whether the (B) Anti-Injunction Act bars relief.
A. The law protects parties to contractual and other relationships against unjustifiable interference. See Louis Kamm, Flink, Inc. v. 113 & N. J. L. 582 A. (E. 1934). Whether the interference is of that character depends upon of the sufficiency interest which the seeks to stranger advance. Here the contest was for The Inde recognition. Union pendent as the emerged unanimous choice of the concerned. It employees collectively for contract bargained for a of time which period cannot be said unreasonable. The law favors collective strongly Kennedy bargaining, Electric Westinghouse J. Corp., (1954); N. it must favor the end equally product process. are satisfied sound policy forbids the use in such circum stances of economic as here weapons to coerce the designed either employer to breach the or to force its agreement to retreat from the Thus, decision made. without resort our constitutional we adhere provision, the conclusion reached on first 23 N. J. appeal. at 98. It is page reason and amply supported by the au thorities there cited. It to note that pertinent although it, federal is not legislation the most applicable, yet pervasive scene, force on industrial embraces the same policy. A., U. C. S. and 158. §§
findWe no substance in Local 680’s insistence that a restraint against peaceful circumstances picketing of this offends the free case speech protected by the due clause of the Fourteenth process Amendment. It has
184
held that
enjoined
be
repeatedly
peaceful picketing
been
if
is
violate
and reasonable state
purpose
significant
either
decision.
judicial
established
policy
by legislative
Co.,
490, 69 Ct.
& Ice
336 U. S.
S.
Empire Storage
v.
Giboney
Court
684,
Superior
B. the ease is this branch of remaining on question :15-51, J. 2A bars Act, N. S. Anti-Injunction (cid:127)whether relief. more or less
A number of states have statutes adopted A., Act, 29 C. the Norris-La Guardia U. S. patterned upon uni has been far from 101-115. Their interpretation §§ We 29 A. L. R. 2d 323 (1953). form. See annotation can review decisions elsewhere. see no profit such statutes fosters note merely generality this and that notwithstanding interpretations divergent an unlawful has objective legislation peaceful picketing there no either the thesis that is labor been on enjoined the unlawful unlawful, or that if the dispute objective even if a dispute the restraint labor objective justifies & Meat Butcher deemed exist. Cutters Amalgamated See Green, 92, 119 Colo. 200 P. North Workmen America v. Grill, 1948); Inc. Lavery’s 2d 924 Ct. Main Street (Sup. Union Employees-Bartenders v. Hotel and Restaurant 288, 902 Cl. Err. 93, 1959); 147 A. M (Sup. 146 Conn. Inc., 23, 138 N. E. 127 Ind. App. Murrin v. Cook Bros. Dairy,
185 604, 2d 907 Ct. Motor (App. 1956); Bitzer Co. v. Local etc., 283, 349 Ill. 110 N. 674 App. E. 2d Ct. (App. 1953); Talarico, Pleasant Valley Co. v. Packing 40, N. Y. 2d 473, N. Y. 2dS. 152 N. 2d 505 1958); (Ct. App. E. Homes, Audubon Inc. v. Building and Construc Spokane Council, tion Trades 49 Wash. 2d P. 2d 1112 Ct. (Sup. 1956), certiorari denied 354 S. Ct. U. S. 1392, 1 L. 2d Ed. 1536 (1957).
The Anti-Injunction Act has two Its phases. major *11 concern is with procedural fairness; indeed, the declaration in N. J. 2A policy S. :15-52 speaks solely of that subject. The other phase the statute deals with restrictions upon the injunctive relief which may be awarded after compliance with the 2A adjective requirements. N. J. :15—51. S. With' the respect to procedural statute aspects, not applies to a only case a labor but as well to “involving” dispute one out of” a labor The statute “growing should dispute. be sympathetically construed to attain the intended pro cedural The fact safeguards. that lawfulness of the objective is in should a picketing dispute not justify Court, of those disregard provisions. See Poirier v. Superior 150 E. 2d 558 N. Jud. Ct. Sup. 1958). have (Mass. no doubt that here there was initially dispute a labor in its later rémained phase at least controversy one out labor dispute. of” a The “growing procedural of the aspects add, statute therefore and we there applied, no were not suggestion fully honored. sole issue is whether as a matter of plaintiffs substantive right entitled, were after the to the statutory hearing, injjmetive relief granted. us to the of N. J. 2A :15-51 brings
This S. which meaning a prohibits restraint acts against specified including: Giving- publicity of, in, “e. existence or the facts involved any dispute, patrolling, advertising, speaking, picket- labor whether ing, violence, by any involving without fraud or other method not violence, any fraud or in and not violation of other law of the state Jersey;” of New declara merely
The statute has to be been construed after applied substantive law to be tory existing Westinghouse have been satisfied. procedural requirements Electrical, etc., Eq. 139 N. J. Electric v. United Corp. L., & A. F. Outdoor A. (E. 1946); Sports Corp. Note, 11 Rutgers 6 N. J. Local See (1951). Rev. 445 that conclusion L. (1956). questions in anti- said to be unique points subparagraph (k), statutes, which reads: injunction public hereby declared, “k. The acts as matter aforesaid are policy Jersey, in no lawful and wise state New be constitute or a tort nuisance.” no in beyond We find concrete direction this language it. Hence which precede terms of specific subparagraphs altera- any If can affect nothing scope (e). (k) intended, law must found substantive was tion of provision the latter itself. here relief was why injunctive
There are two reasons warranted. here in is that labor specific disputes first ordered. had the relief was ceased to exist before
volved *12 “the existence as to protects only Subparagraph publicity (e) The in, the con of, any dispute.” or involved labor facts ended the men when over of troversy discharge the wrongful above, controversy firm described and the took the stand in event upon recognition terminated any over recognition a bargained agreement of and execution of collectively the em by with the after its selection Independent Union ployees. does not restraint
The bar a second reason (e) if an unlawful even purpose for peaceful picketing against 680 contends this view does exist. “labor a dispute” of which reads not rest concluding phrase (e) may upon the state of New in other law of any violation “not refers “method” to and phrase It Jersey.” argues to adds a limitation “picketing” in application hence its only upon mode in which be conducted. picketing may Thus Local 680 contends not be construed phrase may to prohibit which is free from picketing fraud, violence or other illegality manner, because merely illegality the objective of the The in does picketing. phrase question not in the Norris-La appear Act. Its office precise Guardia is not in clear, too but event we think any controlling consideration is that the statute protects peaceful picketing only as a for means "Giving publicity of, to the existence or the facts in, involved any labor The to dispute.” point be noted is that the did not declare that Legislature peaceful shall be a in picketing economic legitimate weapon any all labor disputes. Rather, it barred interference injunctive only with the free right speech protected peaceful as a only means to that end. Hence the statute picketing presents essentially same problem reconciliation between peaceful and free speech with which the picketing United Supreme States dealt in the Court has decisions cited above.
As in pointed out our earlier there was a opinion, brief interval which it was that a per some thought fect equation existed between and free peaceful picketing It speech. soon law became clear that the would acknowledge that more often than not the are more picket his sign than and different from mere exercise to communicate when became, then persuade. question may be as a coercive peaceful bear picketing brought economic weapon disputes? labor statute does not in supply answer. cannot assume the Legislature tended to legalize as a coercive economic peaceful picketing when the weapon no further than language employed goes a mode protect as a cause. It picketing publicizing thus remains judiciary, for the absence more defini tive determine peaceful when legislation, picketing more or other than communica employed something e., tion, i. as full economic intended weapon *13 Slurzberg, coercive Galler v. 31 N. impact, J. Super. cf. N. J. 466 and 1954), Div. affirmed 18 (App. (1955), from protected it to the of others to when must yield right not control the issue Hence statute does coercion. us. before
III. as so Local much challenges judgment of the media of disseminating from enjoins “using any * * * indicate information to the which would public the em- would indicate that that a labor exists” or dispute locked or would of Decker are on or are out strike ployees collectively with the to bargain interfere employees’ right their own through representatives choosing. reveal Local 680 questioned
The record does not form of judgment the trial court breadth of before clarifica- parties suggested as the prevailing presented by course have followed. tion or That should been qualification. in its precise will nonetheless consider objection terms: activity pub- part was Local a circular letter “As pro- P-15, D-234a). injunction (EX lished distributed perfectly distributing (which is letter truthful hibits us from this verify it) using findings of and from since the trial court’s fact anyone mouth, dispute any medium, of our word to inform even plaintiffs or Decker’s.” which publicity of the restraint prohibit sense The circular of the trial court’s findings.
is false the light claim letter, tested, wrongful thus in its was accurate false as it but was insofar activity, for union discharge Independent that Decker formed Union charged it and that join discharged required The restraint repe- reinstatement. against employees sought offend the untruthful does not publicity tition of Amendment or the the Fourteenth free under speech either we read Act. as Anti-Injunction Nothing judgment, matter 680 from it, prevent publicizing would *14 employees of Decker and to others normal through media other than provided picketing, its account is complete and truthful light facts and is free adjudged of threats designed compel collective abrogation contract or bargaining of Local 680 recognition during the contract period. judgment affirmed. No accordingly costs.
Burling, J. (concurring). the views ex- agree pressed by but majority, would additionally rely upon the constitutional grounds enunciated originally this by court upon from appeal the denial of in- pendente lite junctive relief, 23 N. J. 85 of a com- (1956). specter pany-dominated union by raised Local 680 has disintegrated silence of Local 680 defaulting when called upon by the trial court to come forward with proofs the tendered upon issue. The .plenary has confirmed that hearing main objective of was to picketing economic bring pressure to n bear Decker upon with the intent of compelling members of the Independent Union to Local 680 join their against e., free i. will, to relieve the economic pressure their against n employer conserve their thereby employment. The dominant issue' raised on this appeal is identical to that 'disposed of on the previous appeal. I vote to affirm the from which the judgment appeal is n .
-taken. in result. Burling,'-J.,.'concurring For Weintraub, Justice Justices affirmance —Chief Burling, Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor and Hall — 6.
For reversal —None.