*1 Wоods, MINOR, E. S. Louis and Herbert Jr. co-partners, doing Field Oil business as Co., and Diederich Service and Warren Bye, as co-partners, doing business Gene Respond Bye, Diederich and Plaintiffs ents, AND CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING TRADES in affiliation COUNCIL Building De Trades and Construction Labor, partment, Federation American individually Olson, and Harold M. Building Construc President of Minor Council, tion affiliated Trades Depart Building Construction Trades Labor; ment, Car American Federation penters 1032; Local Laborers Local No. 714; 554; No. No. Local Electricians Bricklayers 74; Local Drivers Local No. No. No. Plumbers Local and Steamfitters 565; 627; Local No. Painters & Decorators No. Local Plasterers Finishers & Cement 837; Operating 519; Lathers Local No. Engineers 49; Lo Ironworkers Local No. 708; officers, representa cal No. and the tives, agents Unions and business of said representative ca in their individual and pacities, the class belong, to which Defendants all Appellants.
No. 7481.
Supreme North Dakota. Court 6, 1956.
Feb. *3 Stevens, Minot,
Joseph Gunn, P. D.Wm. Savelkoul, Minn., Paul, and Donald C. St. appellants. for Bjella Jestrab, Williston & William A. Brown, Austin, Tex., respondents. for GRIMSON, Judge. plaintiffs, Minor, Louis E. Jr. Woods, co-partners,
Herbert S. doing busi- Co., ness as Oil Field Service and Warren Bye, co-partners, Diederich and Gene doing Bye, business as Diederich & were con- engaged in the tractors construction busi- They jointly ness. entered into a Signal contract with the Oil & Gas Com- pany doing for the stone and concrete $9,000,000 gas plant work extraction which the Oil & Gas building Tioga, near North Dakota. are labor unions and their representatives. officers and plaintiffs, alleging that the defend- plaintiff’s ants on refusal to force their plant, to unionize their com- picket illegally menced to banner plant, plaintiff causing irreparable dam- age, brought this action and asked for an injunction “restraining the defendants from with, any way interfering molesting, or damaging plaintiffs by the business of the temporary or otherwise.” A re- straining order was issued. The defendants denial, making general then answered al- leging against discriminated unions; dispute a labor existed pany, plaintiff controversy urging them force is covered and that enter into a union Re- contract. provisions Management of the Labor seq., 141 et Act, 1947, U.S.C.A. lations § Finally meeting between the contrac- juris- without the state court was so that Tioga representa- tors of the Gas Plant and hearing in this After the matter. diction the Building tives of & Construction issued its merits the on the district August Trades arranged Council was judgment a limited in- granting order for 19, 1953, by Building the Minot and Con- junction. appeal from such Defendants struction Trade’s Council. Mr. Miller of judgment demanding a trial de novo. *4 Signal Company, the Oil & a Gas representative F. of Pritchard & Com- J. Co., Originally, & a F. Pritchard J. representa- pany, met with union thirteen company of Kan- nationwide construction that meeting. tives at the While City, had for the entire sas the contract meeting they were invited that did not project construction this was later but their notice receive in time to attend. Mr. responsible they only so that were modified Miller, charge of the construction of super- design plant for the of the Signal Tioga Gasoline for the Plant Oil & necessary protect guaranty vision Company, Gas testified that Mr. regard company design. That had Olson^ Building President of Minot and Con-' a closed contract with labor unions struction Trade’s had stated that Council and under that was bound to contract “purpose meeting of the nego- was to operate on the terms of the local unions contract tiate a with Oil Field Service jurisdiction job. over the Their who Company, Bye employ Diederich & representative Tioga at notified local help performance their job.” union of unions Pritchard contract. Soon He testified further: thereafter, July representa- on a Carpenters’ Union of the National re- tive “Q. they you Did ask to intercede? quested meeting a Diederich with Mr. * ** They A. Yes. asked me to employees. Mr. Diederich not job union make a it.” of present day at the time but later that called meeting employees. He a informed cross On examination defendants’ they not “go that union or them could as counsel he testified as follows: they explained them wished.” He “Q. any this On occasion or at changes that would come under a union time, Miller, men, Mr. other did these asked them for a vote. contract and Of union, representing you ask employees, to 35 35 to voted in some your cancel contract with Diederich & remaining favor of non-unionized. Some Bye and Oil Field A. Yes. Service? representatives talked with union men they some of them will- and claimed found “Q. what On occasion was that? meeting join union. One between it I believe was the A. occasion when represеntatives the two of union and Taylor meeting Mr. attended the here. Diederich Mr. and Mr. Minor the Oil expression forceful to the effect When Co., July occurred Field Service all go per we should out on 100 cent At that there some time 1953. dis- job plant, on that when I furnishing about the of iron cussion work- take organ- refused to action inside the Plaintiffs then sug- union. ers * * * those ization of contractors. get that the union in touch gested Miller Oil & Mr. Gas Com- any “Q. representative any Did Ohley Mr. pany you Pritchard time any only Com- at tell they willing contract that type pany. Several of the plaintiff negotiate and Die- talked at different times Bye containing was a contract Signal Oil & derich officers of the Gas with the required all of Company, and the F. Pritchard clause the em- Com- J. members ternational job Operating Engineers to be Union of ployees on provided: Yes, sir, with one union? A. question, exception: I asked person “Each (hereinafter referred they could not exception being employee) to as who is now here- time, so supply reasonable within a employed by after in unit hours, quantity many days, many so for which the union any local there- ordered, then men journeymen agent, shall, is the as a condition of could be belong to the union did employment, become remain a mem- per- be and would secured others ber union on or before 30th. period of certain mitted to work day following the commencement of * ** time. following the effec- sir, right, at tive date “Q. agreement All did the union of this whichever time, representative is the later. Such any shall re- membership tain union, you time tell the union for the require- give up agreement, duration of this condi- willing as a might *5 employment. employ any ex- tion of that the contractors Failure of ment employee comply provisions ? In some with the clusively members A. union upon request of members this article shall the the union of of our discussions union, in they to de- result the termination of such that if were unable stated * * * employee. required requisitioned num- liver the speci- within a artisans ber different of Company original Pritchard & were the mentioned, time, 48 that hours fied project contractors on this and still had that then could seek the contractors supervision representative, thereof. Thеir they elsewhere and type of artisans Ohley, prominent Mr. in the discus- permission to be so given be would preceding picketing. the sions specified period, I employed for a days.” possibly 30 think Signal Company Oil & Gas refused appears to interfere. also that the at which would be Samples of contracts meeting Minot Labor Council al- had pre- shops were unionized were asked if ready representative authorized their Miller, representative of sented to Mr. job banner did not arrive at a Company. Oil & Gas With satisfactory contract with Oil Field Serv- provided contracts exceptions the for few ice Bye and with Diederich & security clause. Two union some kind of day. that The Williston Labor Council was provision that included the contracts of night to be asked to do likewise which men eligible union or “only members of the Upon warning it did. Mr. Miller said employed.” may be An- membership for he would consider contracts if he^ “any person provided that other contract telephone reconsidered he would their sec- employed only so shall be newly employed retary. He did not do that. The second day trial basis at which thirty (30) aon day following meeting, August on 21st. be dismissed without he shall either time at the picketing commenced two entrances seniority placed regular on a recourse plant place where the rail- employee apply shall in which event list grounds. pickets entered the road car- membership.” contract Another for reading: ried a banner project “This un- employees by “All covered this provided: organized fair labor. Bannered 30-day given trial agreement shall Minot and Williston B. & C. T. C.” any qualify classi- period in which until continued the service of the agreement, this covered fication of work temporary restraining August order on shall, period they trial as a after 1953. employment become members of condition period plaintiffs standing.” During employed good The con- employees Company, minimum of 35 Pritchard with In- a and maxi- tract asking injunction the then and as Only a few of for an employees. mum of 90 any any them injunction craft future would have employees members of were protected been willingness The court vain. indicated union. Some rights against for inter- of the defendants them as asked join. them had None of temporary injunction. Clearly to the little con- Very behalf. vention justice acted as the ends of seemed by the tact had been made require. any Am.Jur., Parties, Section the defendants join p. 965. employees get them plaintiff’s persuasion. peaceful plaintiffs The reference to hereafter will only. include the Oil Field Service engaged those None of the time and employees question The first arises None of only had been before. one dispute whether or as defined plaintiffs ceased work by the state and law federal is involved in picketing. on account the case at 34-0801(1), bar. Sec. NDRC stipulated by parties reads as follows: It was plaintiffs in the performed work “ dispute’ ‘Labor shall include gas plant of the natural affect- construction controversy concerning terms or con- meaning interstate commerce within the ed ditions of or concerning the constitution of United States representation association or Management Act and the Labor persons in negotiating, fixing, main- *6 1947. taining, changing, or seeking to ar- range terms or employ- conditions of opening plaintiffs the the of the trial At ment disputants whether not the Bye drop party Diederich & a as moved proximate stand in the relationship of they grounds were plaintiff on no employer employee”. and employed Tioga at Gasoline longer they The Plant. contract under which were practically This the same language as employed had been originally terminated. Taft-Hartley Act, used in the 61 U.S. Stat- drop Objection was made that to Diederich utes, 2(9), p. 138, Sec. 29, U.S.C.A. Title § issue; Bye change the & would that de- 152(9). handicapped present- in fendants would be evidence; The temporary in- evidence
ing their shows that plaintiffs in were not junction paying had been force two months union scale wages nor upon petition maintaining and evidence of Diederich employ- conditions of Bye Only plaintiff’s as well as the Oil Field ment. a & Service few of the em- Company; injunction ployees this at the time involved were members only a damages minority erroneous demand for was of unions and found plain- employees The pending. expressed court ruled that Diedеrich tiff’s join desire to dropped Bye party subject union. The would be vote taken be determined later and that Diederich that, terms to indicated considering the wages not released from the results of difference in were and conditions em- damages ployment any required determination made as to and that would be under the temporary regulations in connection with in- cost those which the plaintiffs were junction. giving, majority pre- ferred to continue under the wages and 28-0211, 1943, NDRC Section given by plaintiffs. conditions Terms may “parties dropped provides conditions entered into on of the court motion added order probably that discussion and determined party or of its own initiative the result. action and on such terms as stage of the Bye may Diederich & had ceased This have had just.”
are some bearing, They only project. not not on action of their work on
145
industry developed
arose
with' As
difficulties
any contract
into
enter
refusing to
industry.
between labor and
endeav-
in order-
unions,
unions
on the
but also
adjust
amicably
such
union-
difficulties
purpose of
picketing,
Congress
leg-
early
United
enacted
Naturally
States
the union
project.
izing the
Act, 1914,
Clayton
islation. There was the
labor wherever
organize all
wanted to
seq.,
15
12 et
the Norris-La-
plant has
U.S.C.A.
of a
possible.
§
The unionization
1932,
et
Guardia Act
.29
101
objective accord-
U.S.C.A.
legal
§
been held a
seq.,
the Wagner Act of
29 U.S.C.A.
weight of au-
overwhelming
ing to the
seq.,
finally,
et
Man-
Council,
151
the Labor
Labor
thority.
§
v. Central
Peters
Act, 1947,
agement
870, 872;
29 U.S.C.A.
Lauf v.
1, 169 P.2d
179 Or.
seq., commonly
hereinafter
141
Co.,
58
et
S.Ct. §
E. G. Shinner &
The
34-0801,
referred to as the
Act.
Under the Sec.
venting interference
doubted.” Carlson v.
California,
106, 113,
State of
other.
legitimate rights of
746, 749,
60 S.Ct.
147 by “(3) in regard discrimination it is within injunction. For issue the any keep employment hire or tenure of power of the state police employment term or en- open both condition opportunities for work membership courage discourage in Gib men.” See nonunion and union any Provided, Co., organization: That 336 Empire Ice oney Storage v. Act, 834; nothing any in 490, this or in other L.Ed 69 93 U.S. S.Ct. Union, States, pre- statute oi the United shall Emp. Intern. Building Service Gazzam, making 70 clude an an 339 Local agreement organization a labor L.Ed. 1045. (not established, maintained, or assist- hereafter, it was to As will be shown any 8(a) ed action defined in section open the in- keep opportunities these practice) Act as an unfair labor junction granted. require employment as a condition membership therein on or after in with la- Picketing, connection as used day beginning thirtieth following the ‘to mean the disputes, been said bor has employment such date the effective or- maintenance of establishment and agreement, of such whichever is the upon the espionage by a union ganized later, organization (i) such labor is persons going employer and of of an works representative him thereby to force from them provided appro- 9(a), section the union. The to the terms of to come priate collective-bargaining unit cover- term, may used in the sense “picketing,” be made; agreement ed such when stationing persons for if, (ii) following the most recent elec- things coercion accomplishing provided 9(e) tion held in section Am.Jur.Labor, Section intimidation. Board shall have certified that Annotation A.L.R. 200. p. 943. See a-majority employees eligi- least in- The evidence shows ble to vote such election have voted against being carried volved was organization to authorize such labor North Dakota. public policy the State of agreement.” make such an power police there In addition to open the state in which prohibits shop area left another This section the closed prevent places violation of it act on the can conditions establishment of public policy. are, however, shop. declared the union There limi- provided in this connection. tations shop Statutes, Chapter p. The union and enforcement of 14(b), Sec. membership open security provides: is left 164(b) 29 U.S.C.A. § provisions Nation state to the “Nothing in this act shall con- be shop is A closed al Labor Relations Act. authorizing strued as the execution or may members only union one where agreements requiring application of one where the em A union hired. membership organization as, in a labor men ployer to hire non-union hut is allowed State condition *9 join the union within a limited must Territory in which such execution or days. days, usually A 30 closed number prohibited application State or is shop shop but a union under prohibited law.” Territorial permitted by that act. certain conditions 4459, (3), p. 29 158(a) 29 U.S.C. Title analyzed § in Algoma Ply- section was This Statutes, (3), 158(a) 61 U.S. U.S.C.A. Emp. § v. wood Veneer Co. Wisconsin Re- provides: 8(a) (3), p. 140 Chapter Sec. Board, 336 69 U.S. S.Ct. lations for an “It shall be employer— [*] [*] an unfair [*] practice lations up of Wisconsin. Wisconsin 93 L.Ed. on certiorari Board 691. That was an action Algoma Plywood Employment Re- Supreme & Veneer brought Court “(2) [*] [*] [*] Co., 252 Wis. 549, 32 N.W.2d 417. That 148 jurisdiction involved policy
case also
interstate commerce
declare
in
security agreement.
company
respect
membership,
a union
of maintenance of
shop
its
had entered into a labor contract with
closed
shop.
all union
Nation-
provision
all
employees containing
Act,
al Labor
8(3),
Sec.
29
employees
members of the union
158(3).”
sup-
U.S.C.A.
(Emphasis
§
standing
plied.)
em-
good
in
a condition
ployment-
remain
should
members of
Supreme
On certiorari
Court
good standing,
which is the so-
in
United States in that
the his-
case traced
maintenance-of-membership clause.
called
Act,
tory of the National Labor Relations
employee
delinquent
One
become
in his
Act,
The Wagner
and made reference
payments and was
notified -that
he
report
the senate
and the statements there
paid up within
not
a week that would be
propo-
shown
have
been made
day
“your
you
last
of work and
will also be
nents of the
indicating
Act
that there was
pay.
fined
He did
he
He stated
$1.”
by congress
legalize
no intent
closed
quit
pay.
would
before he would
He indi-
shop
prohibited by
wherever
laws
cated dissatisfaction with the
He
union.
state.
court then said
[336
ap-
discharged.
was then
He then made
301,
guilty of a misdemeanor.” person life, deprived “No shall be Later when industrial liberty troubles arose in property process or without due east, legislature pass- the North Dakota persons of law. The right of to work Chapter granting pre- ed 1935 S.L. abridged shall not be denied of on ac- ventive relief in labor membership This act disputes. count nonmember- re-enacted, has amended and appear- been ship in labor union organ- or labor 34-08, Chapter now ization, NDRC and all negation contracts in in some amendments hereby abrogation rights of such are Supplements. policy invalid, this state declared to be void and unen- regard in those laws is set in out Sec. forceable.” 34-0802, NDRC 1943: legislature clear that the interpreta- “For the adopted public Dakota for the North state a provisions chapter, tion of the of this policy protecting the right worker his public policy of this state is de- free of to work interference con clared to be that a worker of this state employers organiza either or labor trol shall be free decline to associate right join He tions. his fellows has fellows, with his but that he also shall organization for betterment of his association, full have freedom of self representa his own and to choose condition- organization, designation repre- purpose. also has for that He tives sentatives of his own choosing nego- join any organization right to decline
tiate the terms and conditions of his em- employment retain where- obtain and to ployment, and that he shall be free in he chooses. ever matters, as well as in other con- certed purposes activities for the shops closed and union are Both bargaining collective or other mutual Dakota under these laws. North prohibited protection, interference, aid or impose an all attempt Any restraint, by employers coercion procure a contract re agents.” labor or their resulting is in quiring or defiance .therein carry statutes enacted policy out this clear, policy public; of this state. interpreted must be harmony with the question is whether the policy declared next legislature. estab- shop was of a union involved in lishment In furtherance policy adopted so dispute here under consideration. On legislature has enacted the following matter the district court made statutes: findings of fact: following 34-0901, Sec. Suppl. NDRC Immediately prior August “12. provides that: n the Defendant unions de- public policy “The Signal employ only of this state manded that is de- clared to be that project. a worker shall be free labor on the *11 Immediately prior August any project on to that non-
“13. had been built 1953, unions de- 21, the Defendant non-union or contractors. Finally they Co., Signal Signal gave work Oil & Gas contract for manded time day limit of one their only contractors to meet project demands. on the When that time limit expired the exclusively picketing employed union labor. who shop started. A union had be to' estab- Immediately prior August to “14. lished before the defendants could elect- unions de- the Defendant any ed bargaining to do Signal (1) cancel either manded plaintiff’s employees. for Serv- Plaintiff Oil Field contract of Clearly purpose of that Co., Plaintiff, was compel Oil (2) ice shop establishment of a union Co., employ exclu- Field Service is illegal under our statutes hereinbefore sively union labor. cited. Immediately prior August “15. statutes, addition to those 1953, Section 34- the Defendant unions inform- NDRC it a makes misdemeanor Signal ed that unless all non-union con- any person for prevent another in- tractors were moved job from the timidation employing person, from compelled employ only .to non-union 34-0106, Section NDRC makes it a labor, pick- the Defendant unions would any person misdemeanor for to maliciously et project, banner the unfair interfere with any or hinder citizens organized labor. way from obtaining employment enjoy- times material At all hereto “18. ing employment already obtained. Defendant unions’ de- refused that it cancel its contract with mands Under all these statutes picketing Co., and Field Service Plaintiff Oil plaintiff induce to force a labor union it the unions’ demands refused employees, on his which would interfere Plaintiff, Co., compel Oil Field Service with their right to work, force them to employ exclusively union labor. join a union without will, free illegal. The action of the defendants Immediately prior August “19. amounted to the use of рicketing for coer the Defendant unions de- cion to further an illegal purpose as ex Plaintiff, manded Oil Field Serv- pressed by our Constitution and law here Co., employ exclusively ice union labor set forth. project.” on In the bar purpose case at of the evidence on Some which these pressure exert the Sig- on findings are based has been heretofore Co., nal employers Oil Gas quoted and a careful review of all evi- plaintiffs, by interfering with their business findings dence shows that these amply are thereby forcing discharge them to plain- by 'the evidence of supported the conver- project. tiffs or to unionize It was suc- meetings had at the sample sations cessful in causing truck driver to refuse submitted as heretofore contracts stated. picket cross line with a load steel picketing of defendants was for materials for he fear would be fined or fired purpose forcing shop a union re- Similarly union. membership in quiring organiza- the labor bring the railroad refused to in a car of employment. condition tion as a Not cement. they only make a did demand for union threatened but also that no union Even picketing is permitted would be to work illegal open member and comes within an area left state, long argued as there were to the it project as that since non-union the de- working authority represent there and further no un- members fendants no permitted would be plain- members to work or to do bargaining ion
151
try-
sup-
An
in
in
examination of the cases cited
conduct
employees, defendants’
tiff’s
port
he
of
contention that the
of
shop should
conduct
force a union
ing to
by
plaintiffs’ plant
prohibited
picketing
practices
by the unfair
measured
that,
practice
was an
Taft-
there-
unfair labor
under the
by
Taft-Hartley Act and
Hartley Act
in
was with
shows that
fore,
matter
conduct
jurisdiction in this
prevent-
those
purpose
cases was for
of
would be
That
Board.
the National Labor
protected
an end
by
la-
that was
the Taft-
“unfair
designated
conduct
true
Hartley
74,
Act.
Taft-Hartley Act
Local United Brotherhood
practice” under the
bor
Carpenters
of
of
of America v. Na-
accomplishment
prevent the
used to
was
Joiners
Board,
707,
tional Labor Relations
by
It
objective
Act.
protected
some
966,
1309;
71 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
practices
95
National Labor
unfair
be noted
should
55,
Relations Board v. Local Union No.
10
Taft-Hartley Act involved
by
prohibited
Cir., 218
226. In
of
purpose
pre-
F.2d
neither
those cases
of
conduct carried
for
purpose of
by
specially
was the
protected
objective
venting some
Taft-Hartley
excluded from the
Act
in
by agencies
as
instance, bargaining
act. For
at
the case
bar.
of
union
certified as
not
120,
Chapter
required by
9(a),
Section
clearly appears
to us that
unfair
these
143,
an unfair
p.
was made
61 U.S.Statutes
practices in the Taft-Hartley
labor
Act do
in the
protect the union
practice to
labor
any way. apply
obj
not in
when
ective
attempt to
An
cause
bargaining.
matter
accomplishment
is the
an illegal
an em-
against
employer to discriminate
an
bar, purpose
as in the
case at
left free for
membership or non-mem-
ployee because
control
14(b),
the state. Sec.
and not
8
Section
organization,
bership in a labor
against
protected
an objective
by the Taft-
practice
unfair labor
(3),
made an
was
(a)
Hartley Act.
right work
in his
protect the laborer
membership. The
irrespective
union
Teamsters,
The case of Garner v.
Chauf-
in the instant
the defendants
conduct
485,
161,
Helpers, 346
feurs &
U.S.
74 S.Ct.
protected
objective
against
not
case
228,
authority
98
has been
L.Ed.
cited
for
ob-
It was for an
Taft-Hartley Act.
by the
preemption
matter
under the
act. The
definitely excluded
j ective
Management
Labor
The
Act.
the establishment
was for
here
facts differentiate that case from the case
the North
shop in contravention
In
proceedings
the Garner case the
bar.
excepted
in a
law which is
field
Dakota
brought
Pennsylvania Equity
Taft-Hartley Act. 61 U.S.Stat-
from
Pennsylvania
under the
Court
Labor Rela-
Chapter 120,
utes,
151,
14(b), 29
p.
Section
Act,
seq.
43 P.S.Pa.
211.1 et
tions
§
requirements
164(b).
U.S.C.A. §
picketing of
trucking
issue involved the
a.
employees,
representatives of the
elective
practices
involving unfair
concern
practices
designation of unfair labor
prescribed
for which remedies were
both
because of
matter
discrimination
in
n Management
the Labor
Relations Act
ways
membership
and in other
in a union
Pennsylvania
Labor Relations Act.
therefore,
not,
apply.
said
Pro-
As
do
objective sought
protected by
both
in A Treatise on Labor
Forkosch
fessor
procedure,
In
pre-
acts.
such cases the
however,
14(b),
Law,
“Section
must
p. 336:
empted by
area
Act. No
Although
(3),
Sec. 8(a)
be overlooked.
not
left free
the states was involved. Bethle-
contracts,
shop
14(b)
Section
permits union
Co. v. New York
hem Steel
State Labor Re-
outlaw their
to forbid and
-permits states
Board,
lations
U.S.
enforcement within their
execution
the most men, Co., hiring ice SATPIRE, J., concurs. time. Evеn non-union, particular at that given Minor were of Mr. if the statements by the defend interpretation claimed JOHNSON, Judge (concurring). any equita not constitute that would ants opinion prepared Judge I concur in the *16 the ille performance of for the ble excuse GRIMSON, present hereby but I desire to plaintiffs to have by the claimed gal acts additional for the affirmance some reasons En In Gill defendants. done been the judgment. D.C., Doerr, 214 F. graving v.Co. held:
the court
by asking,
My
may
begin
well
discussion
at-
photo
en-
of the
primary
what was the
proprietor of
“That
representa-
business,
against
tempt by
relief
union
defendant
seeking
graving
representatives
claimed
negotiating
labor union
tives
of a
the acts
discharged
Company,
and re-
Prit-
it,
Signal
F.
had
Oil and Gas
injured
have
J.
engravers did
Die-'
Company,
Field Service and
employ union
chard
Oil
fused
equity.”
Bye?
aid of
it of the
derich
deprive
not
against
by plaintiffs
stronger acts
Much
Mr. Miller of
Oil and Gas Com-
deny
insufficient
held
been
union have
length.
at
pany testified
informal
Several
illegal
against
injunction
plaintiffs an
meetings
place
par-
taken
between the
Cooks’,
& Waitresses’
See
Waiters’
acts.
meeting August
ties. But
Tex.Civ.App.,
Papageorge,
v.
Local Union
brought the
that meet-
issue to a head. At
Iron
Central
1086; New York
230 S.W.
present.
ing the
were not
Brennan, Sup.,
N.Y.S.
Works Co.
attempt
primary
get
In an
at
ob-
Co., Cir.,
457;
G.
v. E.
Shinner
Lauf
defendants,
jectives of
statements of
158 protect, maintain, enforce completion junction to expeditious interested primary public policy this state. declared facts plant. But the show my opinion had such an all- is that the trial court objectives attainment of be the jurisdiction. under con- If the violations wanted job. The Taft-Hartley under violations make That Law and it so. that would tracts state, par- public policy this considerations the declared requirement. Other the first law, ticularly “right work” Section objective. left abide were Supp., covered 34-0114, 1953 NDRC point at issue is whether The main area, cases there then under the the same in this practices involved labor unfair controversy being is no doubt that this com- controversy, involved interstate commerce, state involving interstate jurisdic- merce, deprive court of the state jurisdiction. court would have no enjoin tion the defendants. found, primary If as the trial court clearly policy established public Our is objectives bannering Dakota Constitu- 23 the North Section procure security contracts 34— NDRC tion and Sections 34— plaintiffs, with the Field Service Com- Oil 34-0802, Supp., NDRC NDRC pany Bye, for the em- and Diederich and 34-0901, Supp. Un- NDRC 1953 ployment exclusively of union labor both and our statutes der our Constitution them, employed respect to the crafts shop arc il- shop and the union the closed persuade and to Oil and Gas 34-0114, Supp. NDRC 1953 legal. Section require to nego- security contracts, tiate union and to force here, such as exist Under circumstances require doing them cease business place of the acts that took con- where some plaintiffs, with the did trial court have practices unfair under stitute jurisdiction, jurisdiction or was the where the same acts Taft-Hartley Law and controversy pre-empted under the Taft- public policy illegal are under the declared Act? Hartley under the State of North Dakota statutes, “right and other work” act Chapter 14(b), page Under Section subjеct solely controversy involved one U.S.Statutes, U.S.C.A. § jurisdiction of National Labor to the provided: it (b), Board under the “Nothing in Act shall be con- attempt pro- Act, illegality or or does the authorizing strued as execution violating “right to work” cure contracts application agreements requiring public policy, contrary give our law membership organization in a labor employers remedies under a choice of *19 any in condition State Act, Taft-Hartley de- the state law or the Territory in which such execution or upon ground illegality pending application prohibited by is State or they may assert ? That is the want Territorial law.” controversy. in this issue crucial application The execution or of closed Taft-Hartley Act violations shop prohibited or union contracts is in controversy clearly in this are dis- involved commonly North Dakota. This is referred attempted pro- violations to tinct from law, “right to as the to work” Section 34— void, are illegal, cure contracts that 0114, Supp. NDRC public contrary policy to the of the State of North Dakota. 14(b) Does Section Cede to the states complete jurisdiction injunction controversy in jus- in this case in
While primary objective by primarily court is trial which the to obtain tified police power, put in violation thereof ? ques- the state’s contracts Or an- basis Act, way, Tak-Hartley as to whether or other does arises not be- tion only jurisdiction to it in a limitdd issue the in- cause sense covers the was within law, right bargaining’ al- ed to collective to work” “right our same area as different, injunction which the conflicted.” entirely effect is though legal jurisdiction? taking from bar the state right bargain No exists in this state to expressed. here states give intended to Congress If the by Section the area covered a free hand in Taft-Hartley protect Act does not states intended 14(b) it must have 'by our “right to work” as determined pro- enforce, maintain right have the public policy. prohibits It is that it true that sec- pursuant any policy adopted tect shop protects the closed the union area under words, this an tion. In other complied if certain conditions with as are been ceded has Taft-Hartley Act which act, required by the but it does not com- inter- states, аny federal free pletely protect in the our statutes sense that area It is an act? ference under that do, would, there- “right to work”. by recognized is not relations which labor may fore, by injunction seem that a state area re- Taft-Hartley It is Act. public protect, maintain, and enforce its If the specific exclusion. in a ferred to any policy, and that this is not sense a state, it must then to a area is exclusive Taft-Hartley with the conflict Act. rig-ht have the the state must follow that maintain, enforce it. protect, may picket- it be conceded that the While any provide for Taft-Hartley Act does not ing in the at bar unfair case constituted maintenance, enforcement protection it, statutes, practice under federal promulgated as laws “right to work” picketing, time at the same by law, the states. under our state because it had for its objective illegal the attainment contracts true, though the violations If that be even objectives prohibited sought law. The cover some here involved also which are only practices are not unfair labor but are Act, Taft-Hartley that be- areas under the completely prohibited. event the . left the area immaterial since comes attempting to obtain a result unions complete. The be assumed to be states must prohibited by Taft-Hartley in a manner area, protection its maintenance of this prohibi- Act and the state law. But the dup- in no a state is sense enforcement scope greater under our law is of tion much authority upon any power or set lication than Act. violation by the federal law. It is not or covered out prohibited, protected, field that is In Garner v. Teamsters Chauffeurs & provisions. It is an with its conflict area Union, 161, Helpers 346 U.S. 74 S.Ct. to the states. left 228, it was said: 98 L.Ed. Anheuser-Busch, Weber v. In the case of impinge “For a state to on the area L. Inc., 75 S.Ct. n oflabor designed combat to be free Supreme United Court of Ed. quite much an of fed- obstruction analyzed leading some of the cases. States policy if the state were to eral de- It said: purposes picketing free for clare pro- which the federal methods Act *20 The Court has ruled “1. hibits.” prohibit may not the exercise of State protect. the Acts which federal rights prohibited Here the is when Thus, Florida ex in Hill v. State of rel. obtaining for the of conducted 538, 1373, Watson, 65 325 U.S. illegal under our something that is statute. 1782, enjoined 1375, the State 89 L.Ed. therefore, It, impinge not on the does area functioning from until a labor designed combat to be free under of complied statutory certain had it Taft-Hartley Act. the injunction in was requirements. simplest ques- terms the ground Wag on the Reduced validated propounded ‘federally may be thus: Must the included establish- Act tion ner protecting', main- union. .Since nothing there was court refrain from state public Wagner or enforcing Taft-Hartley sanctioning its declared Acts taining and forbidding clauses, also involved vio- or left policy there are these where Act, Taft-Hartley regulation such to the vio- of the state. lations of the than those entirely different being lations state, Since 14(b) under Section Did law? under the state involved permitted prohibit entirely closed and under those the states Congress intend that shops, done in this has been upon dependent be enforce- circumstances state, prohibition and since does not such provisions policy by the of ment of provision with any specific conflict Taft-Hartley by federal action? Act Taft-Hartley Act, this area is in and since of our stat- work the sense right to provi- the nature of an exclusion protected that act. by be Nor ute cannot Act, complete pro- regulation, sions of it meant be. was tection, maintenance and enforcement of Inc., Anheuser-Busch, v. must In Weber this area be to the state to left free 546, L.Ed. 75 S.Ct. make it effective. said: the court Certainly it be conceded that no- must Local, Allen-Bradley etc. “In Taft-Hartley Act is there com- where in Employment Relations Wisconsin work” plete protection “right such Board, 62 S.Ct. 315 U.S. public as is afforded the declared under State was allowed L.Ed. Dakota, policy North State of threats picketing, mass enjoin therefore, controlling super- there is no damage property bodily injury and power, curtailment seding federal there- obstruction of streets and employees, because the in- the state. This is so roads, blocking of entrance public nature of a than that tervention is different factory, аnd egress from be afforded under the Taft- which would employees’ homes. The Hartley Act. conduct was that such not held Court Where, regulation by here, negotiations as subject such as federal pro- were, Board, 'by prohibition court, and as either found the trial ' supplied.) (Emphasis main objectives for their tection.” violation public policy the declared State of words, there was no conflict In other be- Dakota, enjoined North could be same Taft-Hartley state law and the tween law, illegal because under our and the state prohibiting protecting Act either not action does conflict with the Taft-Hart- The court also involved. said in conduct ley equivalent protection Act as no is af- case: the same employers to the or laborers forded under act the federal as exists under the state law. Union, etc., “International v. Wis- Employment Board, consin Furthermore, 14(b) since under Section 69 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. Taft-Hartley be Act is construed recurrent, 651, involved unannounced authorizing application the execution or stoppages. upheld The Court work membership agreements requiring in la- injunction ground on the the state organizations of employ- bor as a condition prohibited neither conduct territory state ment which such protected Act nor application prohibited by execution or open to state control.” thus law, implied state or territorial it must Plywood right Algoma necessary incident Ve- thus cáse *21 Employment prohibit application the execution and Wisconsin Rela- Co. neer 301, 584, Board, agreements providing 69 S.Ct. closed or 336 U.S. tions for might that take 691, shop, the state court forbid state enforce- whatever L.Ed. (cid:127) membership steps necessary maintenance, secure maintenance of are aof ment protection law, and between and enforcement a contract clause every state should be case where denied in resort include a which would pre- right may asserted of banner- federal be primary court when con- served without illegal it.” an picketing is to secure ing and law. the state contrary provisions of tract may applied labor re- This to the field of object enact- certainly for no There was lations. It сould never have been intended Taft- part of as a 14(b) ment of Section prohibit might entirely agree- that state that the state merely means Hartley Act if it involving ments closed application execution may prohibit the agreements entirely make such null and nothing may but do agreements of these void, powerless and then be left to take such more. steps effective; policy as would make its jurisdiction that its courts without sovereign- our dual maintenance of The maintain, enforce, protect policy that constitutions the federal and state ties under pre- where such enforcement would also upon unduly encroach that neither demands rights serve federal might that be involved. can be avoided. insofar as the other sphere ex independent in its own Each is apart I conclude that considera- from consti federal cept limited state police power, tion of the the state for com- pow separation of The provisions. tutional reasons, pelling right protect, has the government, system of dual under our ers protecting maintain and enforce laws complete inde federal, demands state “right regardless membership work” prop its within pendence actions of each union, non-membership in a labor regulations, sphere governmental er primary purpose was the for which for mainte dependent not be state should provision was made in the Act policy in public enforcement of nance or 14(b), under 164(b). Section 29 U.S.C.A. § relations, by the North labor as determined statutes, pro upon constitution and Dakota expressed herein For reasons as well as government or court action of cedures Judge opin- those set out in GRIMSON’S Undoubtedly States. United ion, judgment should be affirmed. 14(b) of Section the insertion basis for case, Lo Virginia act. The the federal MORRIS, Judge (dissenting). Journey Ass’n of cal No. United Union Plumbers, Graham, men, etc. v. appeal judgment This is from a recognizes 97 L.Ed. 73 S.Ct. County enjoin- District Court Williams judicial process has a by its that a state ing the the con- defendants policy public protect its declared right to plant being struction site of a built right to work statutes. under the so-called Company, Signal foreign Oil and Gas may not have interstate commerce While corporation. are construction case, the area where been involved in performance engaged in contractors state as is exclusive to the or field of action contract entered into with the Oil 14(b) of the Taft- indicated Section party and Gas which is not a Act, Hartley courts must have the state are un- this action. policy inter protect that whether right to representatives of such ions or officers or involved or not. state commerce unions. plaintiffs’ complaint part alleges Rodgers, 284 Matthews v. In the case of 217, 219, day August, L.Ed. that on 19th a. each about nine m. received it was said: request and notice as follows: mail a right- scrupulous regard “The meeting arranged be- independence governments “A has been ful of state Tioga the Contractors of the at all times tween which should actuate Representatives courts, proper Plant and and a reluctance Gas federal Building and Construction by injunction with their fis- Trades to interfere Wednesday the 19th of require relief Ail' operations, that such Council cal *22 join un- employees Defendants Signal their morning at gust at 10:00 discharged being Tioga. ions under threat of Company’s Field House Oil employees sup- being replaced with and representative request that “We plied by Defendants unions.” company this meet- your attend from complaint de- forth in have also sets some representative ing and that such op- plaintiffs’ injurious tail the effect on authority a final decision to make picketing that resulted from important might effect erations matters that on per- temporary and and asks for both a job in future.” the entire injunction. manent Building and Con- was signed “Minot gen- contains a The defendants’ answer Olson, Council, N. Harold struction Trades specifically denies that eral denial and alleged: is then President.” It any purpose bannering or A.M., “That ten on o’clock any com- as stated defendant was day representa- August, 19th alleges: plaint. The also answer of Plaintiffs informed Defendants tives dispute exists between “that a labor notice, adequate they had had no and that and defendants they were unable to discuss and jurisdiction court is therefore without terms and conditions requested in the grant the relief Defendants, they and that had moving papers herein. complaint and represen- proof that the Defendants no ted their employees, and that there- [*] [*] [*] any not enter into fore Plaintiffs could proceeding pending “that if there is covering negotiations with Defendants court, the same covered before approximately employees. At these provisions Manage- Labor time, presented Defendants same Act, 1947,and this court ment Relations they desired contracts which Plaintiffs is, therefore, jurisdiction without over execute, ef- the force and Plaintiffs to subject matter.” said require Plain- of which were to fect employees and discharge their tiffs temporary in- The court first issued employ Defendants un- members of the junction and after a trial was rendered em- ions, coerce their or to enforce or judgment decreeing defendants A ployees join Defendants unions. individually collectively, and their em- instruments, copy mark- of these one ployees, representatives, and servants is annexed hereto and ed Exhibit ‘C’ any person acting in aid or other assistance part amade hereof.” of the defendants “be and are and of them is each complaint then sets forth enjoined hereby per- agree- restrained and to execute these plaintiffs refused picket manently perpetually either direct- began and the ments ly indirectly any or plant Oil and or means or Signal site of and banner the doing Friday, attempting to do August methods Gas following described acts: picketing has continued plaintiffs. damage It is irreparable bannering, “Picketing, boycotting alleged: further the Plaintiff Oil Field either Service Co., Co., Signal & Oil Gas "The engineers, contractors or plant is bannering to enforce a plant Gas Signal Oil & Co. or boycott against these Plaintiffs warehouse, tracks, site, Company, tracks, team Oil and Gas force vehicles, roads other facilities contract with Inc. terminate Plaintiff, Sig- Field per- Oil Service Co. or them, unable to to render them Co., Inc., used or contract, nal Oil Gas useful and to force and form gasoline natural connection force and coerce coerce Plaintiffs *23 Sig- Anheuser-Busch, Inc., plant sulphur extraction adjacent Co., 546. nal Oil & Inc. 99 L.Ed. Gas Dakota, by: city Tioga, North We must determine whether conduct pap- cameras, pencil and been “(1) Using defendants in this case has er, ostensibly practice” made “an under the to record unfair labor or other means Taft-Hartley identity persons vehicles Plaintiffs’ Act. poll are not intercourse In an informal engaging in business unionized. majority employeesexpressed pref- ef- Co. in of the Plaintiff Oil Field Service from erence for None of the fecting ingress egress to and nonunion status. site; bargain- defendants plant have been certified as agency employeesby for the the Nation- picket rotating “(2) Maintaining a al Labor Relations Board. No election has forth, across, directly line back and bargaining been held for the selection of a entrances; plant in front of the U.S.C.A., agency provided by Title 29 159. § any picketing, ban- “(3) Engaging in and all nering, boycotting Despite the fact that the defendants which, pro- measures other coercive authority no bargain in behalf likely intimi-
longed, is calculated plaintiffs’ employeesthey demanded that undertaking to persons engaged date plaintiffs recognize bargaining them as engage in business intercourse agents and enter with the into contracts plaintiff or induce violence.” regarding membership, various defendants hours, wages, per- working conditions appeal The defendants judg- from this taining employees performing work in ment and demand a trial anew in this court. represented by building various trades defendant unions. stipulated It is being per- that the work plaintiffs for and formed under their The Minot Building and Construction contract with the Oil and Gas Com- Trades Council called meeting August on pany affects interstate commerce within 19, 1953, at they requested pres- meaning of the Constitution United of the representative ence of a each Management and the States Labor Rela- plaintiffs. repre- were not tions Act of 1947 which will be hereinaft- sented at the meeting. Signal Oil and Gas referred Taft-Hartley er to as the Act. Company represented by Lloyd Miller charge who was in of the construction of The overall issue is whether the conduct Tioga plant. He length testified at enjoined of the defendants that has been plaintiffs. a witness for He stated province within fаlls of the National representatives explained of the unions Labor Relations Board as allocated to it meeting, which was to ne- Taft-Hartley Act to the exclusion of gotiate a contract with Oil Field Service jurisdiction. state Bye employ and Diederich and may help enjoin performance “A State under its job of their they and that own labor statute conduct which has wanted Miller negotiate practice’ ‘unfair been made an contract. He told the authority under federal statutes. Such was he had no case, supra. holding operations in the Garner interfere with the internal Teamsters, plaintiffs. v. Un Chauffeurs defendants asked him to in- [Garner ion, 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. tercede behalf of the unions and he ad- pointed place that ex them that it Court out vised was not his to do so. 228.] primary jurisdiction pass they He also stated that clusive wanted him ne- delegated gotiate plaintiffs. the union’s a contract with the He samples Act to the “I received National said: from the different crafts of Labor Board.” Weber contracts that wanted to ne- *24 164 quali- duly rep- nish a number the sufficient testified that
gotiate.” Miller also require- necessary fied him men to meet wanted resentatives of the defendants plain- employer, em- ments of the then the or stop the induce to either work ployer may immediately secure other sources negotiate tiffs to contract qualified may be al- such additional men as and Minot Labor Council that “the necessary; provided be under- ready that it authorized acceptable stood that such additional men shall job group to our if an banner party agreement become this be- arranged for between contract was days (30) expired.” fore respective thirty unions.” have and the contractors clause This to indicate that the con in evidence seems introduced shop union-security contracts, be- tract is a or among them several of these strictly agreement rather than closed in attached ing the referred and contract shop Rela Labor plaintiffs’ complaint. contract contract. See National This Union, Board proffered tions v. National Maritime behalf Exhibit D. was on It Cir., International F.2d 686. Number Local Union Electrical Workers. Brоtherhood of respect Signal With to the and Gas Oil strictly as disclosed contract closed Company plant being for whom by paragraphs: these constructed, the found: trial court Employer 3: “Sec. Article 2. “The unions de- Defendant labor only good in employ members shall manded as Signal owner standing electrical the Union all on plant gasoline being con- extraction however, work; Union be should structed, compel the Plaintiffs and each Employer unable furnish agreements of them to enter into for time workmen within hours of members of representative receives the Union or only on the construc- Defendant unions request, issue tem- the Union shall plant, agreements tion of that under who porary working to workmen cards substantially agree- the form of the par- acceptable both apply and are ment is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘D’.” which can as time the Union ties until such The trial court also this conclu- reached Any workman furnish workmen. sion: minimum least shall receive under the conditions wages and work by “That sought the Defendants agreement.” boy- means picketing, bannering cotting to coerce and induce Apprentices “Sec. Article 3. 9. transporting commodities carriers registered be with the Union be- shall plant and other materials to the site put Apprentices being to work. fore Company, among Oil and Gas sign apprenticeship application an must persons, engage other a concerted Apprentice- appear before Joint employ- of their refusal in the course ap- All ship interview. Committee transport ment to or otherwise handle governed be prentices shall consigned materials or commodities established standards rules the’plant site, object being thereof Committee.” Apprenticeship Joint require Signal to force and Gas or Oil contract, in this record known Another doing cease business with printed G, submitted on Exhibit was the Plaintiffs.” Plumbers and the Minot Master form picketing, bannering “That Pipefitters Local 627 con- Plumbers the Defend- boycotting carried following clause: tained purposes for the mentioned ants notice, preceding paragraph was unfair an “Whenever, after reasonable practice 8(b), defined Sec. forty-eight labor defined as shall paragraph Manage- 4 of Labor hours, to fur- Local is unable (48) forcing employer requiring 1947.” Act of ment Relations self-employed person join any 158(b)(4). C.A. § em- organization under practice It is unfair labor ployer or person using, other to cease *25 employer Taft-Hartley Act for an selling, handling, or transporting, dealing products otherwise in of “by regard to hire or in discrimination any producer, processor, other or man- employment any or term or tenure of ufacturer, or doing to cease business employment encourage to condition any person; with other (B) forcing membership any discourage in labor or or requiring any employer other rec- to Provided, nothing That organization: ognize bargain or with a labor organi- any stat- subchapter, or in other this representative zation as the of his em- States, preclude shall ute of the United ployees unless organization such labor making agree- an employer an representative has been certified as the (not organization ment with labor employees of such provisions under the established, maintained, or assisted title; of section (C) 159of forcing this any in this subsection action defined requiring any or employer recog- to practice) require to as an unfair labor bargain nize particular or with'a labor employment member- as a condition of organization representative as the ship the thirtieth therein on or after employees his if another labor organi- day following beginning such zation has been certified repre- as the employment or the effective date of employees sentative of such under the later, is the whichever agreement, such provisions title; of section .159of this is the organization if labor (i) such * * U.S.C.A., 158(b)(4). employees § representative of the title, provided 159(a) this in section Thus it practice is an unfair labor for an collective-bargain- appropriate employer by discrimination in regard to agreement covered unit hire or employment tenure of any or term the time when made and has at the. employment or condition of encourage or was made or within agreement discourage membership any organi- labor months received from preceding twelve equally zation and it is an labor unfair compliance a notice of with the Board practice for organization a labor to force title, 159(f), (g), (h) section require or an so recog- do or to * * 158(a)(3). 29 U.S.C.A. *.” § bargain nize or organization labor representative as the employees his un- practice for a labor It is unfair labor an less that labor organization has been certi- agents organization or representative fied as the employees attempt cause an em- “to cause by the National Labor Relations Board. against ployer an discriminate em- In this case the ployee defendants (a) in violation of subsection demanded * * plaintiffs bargain (3) this section defend- ants and enter security into union 158(b)(2). contracts C.A. § with them. The demands included a closed' practice also an unfair labor for a shop part contract on the of at least one agents organization labor or its defendant and a contract containing pref- in, induce engage “to or to or en- erence and referral clause on part any employer courage the another. closed contract would in, engage a strike a concerted into entered have been of itself a viola- in the course of their em- Taft-Hartley refusal tion of the Act and no union use, manufacture, ployment process, lawfully contract could be entered into transport, or otherwise handle or work under the Act except with a articles, materials, goods, bargaining agent certified employees. perform any upon commodities Thus the entire serv- demand Signal Oil ices, object (A)' Company upon where thereof is: and Gas arid pla&tiffs union asked representative of a The form of other practice. an unfair im- Mr. Miller however, great force either contracts, is not of require controversy to enter contract would reached into a never portance. The persons. only took the of union bargaining point actual where demanded place specificcontract was and no By entirely ignoring the evidence Signal Oil plaintiffs or the of either majority opinion reaches defendants submitted Compаny. The forms and Gas purpose of the conclusion that the sole hoped the defendants specimens which Field compel Oil Service was to bargaining. use basis enter union contracts with into in violation of laws of it was specimen contracts In some of *26 Dakota; expressly North that “The Contractor provided specifically permits prohibit states to the execution bar- as exclusive recognizes the Union requiring application agreements mem- employees are of its who
gaining agents’
bership in
a
organization
labor
condi-
agreement.” In others
this
covered
employment
tion of
and therefore
state
bargaining
position
jurisdiction
enjoin picketing
has
to
clearly implied.
agents was
purpose
compelling
for
execution
21, 1953,the
unions
August
defendant
On
of such contracts.
solution is not
through
defendant
jointly and
acting
simple. Upon
record I
the whole
con-
Construction Trades Council
Building and
primary purpose
pick-
clude that the
of the
picket line’at the entrances
up rotating
set
compel
eting
recog-
was to
to
Signal Oil and Gas
plant site of the
to
bargaining agents
nize
defendants as
bearing
Pickets carried banners
Company.
negotiate
for their
and to
em-
Project
“This
to Or-
legend:
Unfair
ployment contracts with the defendants.
pickets
of the
Labor.” None
ganized
designed
bring
was
this
to
plaintiffs.
employeesof
indirectly
compulsion
through Sig-
to bear
directly
interfering
through
nal Oil and
many
de-
During the trial
controversies
plaintiffs’ operations
plant
at the
with
site.
evidence.
veloped
the admission of
over
attorneys repeatedly stated that'
Plaintiffs’
It is clear that the conduct of the de-
attempting'
prove
to
alleged
and were
plant
fendants in
site of
shop
closed
demanded
the defendants
Company
Oil and Gas
constituted
the other
in violation of law. On
contracts
practices
unfair labor
under Section 8 of
hand,
purpose of the defend-
the avowed
Taft-Hartley Act,
29 U.S.C.A.
158.
§
compel
plaintiffs to nego-
was to
ants
compel
designed
plaintiff
to
em-
into contracts with the
and enter
tiate
ployers
bargain
with defendants who
Watts was a business
The witness
unions.
represent
were not authorized to
the em-
of Iron Workers Loсal Un-
representative
ployees
discrimination in regard
represen-
also one of the
He was
ion 708.
hire and tenure
to en-
Building
and Construction
tatives
courage membership in a
organiza-
attempt
negotiate.
Council
Trades
The picketing
respect
tion.
with
to Signal
concludes
examination
as fol-
direct
His
Oil and Gas
:
lows
secondary pressure
exerting
in fur-
design.
therance of that
you
“Q.
willing
meet
Would
with
time
at
point
is the case of Local
United
purpose of
for the
discuss-
Plaintiffs
Carpenters
Brotherhood
and Joiners
controversy?
Yes,
sir.”
A.
America,
etc. v. National Labor Rela-
Board,
Johnson,
representative
tions
Arthur
S.Ct.
J.
union for the
95 L.Ed.
In that
carpenters
Stanley,
State North
1309.
case
who
house,
Dakota,
dwelling
that at the
meeting of. owned
contracted
testified
with
improve
.19,
meeting
other
he Parker to
renovate it.
August
Parker
Miller,
employed
A
Mr.
neither he nor
union men.
retail store
with
attended
called
Stanley, with
company operated
with
unions. The
“Watson’s” contracted
insurance
consent,
open
implied
install wall an
respect
Parker’s
own em-
ployees.
house. Watson’s
coverings in the
This
controversy
and floor
resulted in a
effort
In an
employed
objected
labor.
unions that
having
nonunion
his in-
Stanley
cancel
force the owner
members work alongside nonunion men.
a union None
respondent
contract with Watson’s
stallation
unions were certi-
cessation of fied bargaining
or concerted
agencies
ordered a strike
for insurance com-
pany
carpenters.
employees.
part
of union
poll employees
work on
In a
company
Board found this insurance
National Labor Relations
voted against one of the
respondent
practice
unfair labor
conduct to be an
unions as their bargaining agent.
court,
supreme
was sustained
Being unsuccessful in their
said:
efforts to
force the
company
insurance
sign
a col-
the Denver case
“As determined in
lective bargaining agreement,
respond-
Labor Relations Board v.
[National
placed
ents
the insurance company on their
Building
Denver
and Construction
unfair
picketed
list and
the construction
Council,
Trades
site.
*27
enough
it is
that
L.Ed 1284]
objects
the
of the action com
one of
In determining that
the facts and the
Stanley
plained was
force
to can
to
law afforded a sound basis for the order of
It
not im
contract.
does
cel Watson’s
board,
the
the court said:
8(b) (4) (A)
munize
action from
§
object
an
show that it also had as
to
“Here, at the
situs,
common
con-
rule of
the
of a
enforcement
the.
struction work
being
was
carried on
not work on a
that its members should
the Insurance Company,
primary
men
project
nonunion
on which
employer,
and
certain subcontrac-
require
employed. The statute did not
tors.
object
of the picketing was
carpenters
remain on
to
the individual
compel
to
Company
Insurance
however,
did,
it
make
job.
It
recognize one
respondents
of the
as the
practice for the union or
unfair
bargaining agent for
employees
its
and
strike,
in a
as
agent
engage
its
to cease working nonunion
along-
men
here,
object
doing
so
when an
did
side of union members. The picketing
project
owner to can
was to force
signs were not directed at the primary
with Wat
installation contract
cel his
employer alone, but at
project,
son’s.”
secondary
which
employers were also
working.
It read:
‘Working Condi-
question as to whether conduct
theOn
on
tions
This
Unfair Carpenters’
juris-
Job
within
comes
of the defendants
District Council.’ It is a reasonable
Labor Relations
the National
diction of
inference from the evidence that
pri-
Labor
in National
Rela-
the decision
Board
mary purpose of the picketing was to
55, Cir.,
Union No.
v. Local
tions Board
employees
cause the
of the subcon-
226, 231, helpful because of the
218 F.2d
tractors to cease working on
proj-
In that case the
similarity in facts.
board
prevent
ect and
the subcontractors
against
desist order
cease and
had issued a
from completing the construction under
The Professional and
respondent unions.
subcontracts,
their
as a means
Company
Life Insurance
com-
Men’s
Business
pelling the Insurance Company
dwelling
residential
con-
engaged
rec-
was
ognize one
respondents
of the
gen-
as its own
project.
acted
as
struction
bargaining agent
employed
employees
as such
skilled
its
and
contractor
eral
and
to cease working
nonunion
laborers.
addition it con-
men
and
on
workers
project.
per-
subcontractors
That
only
various
was the
way
tracted
that
respondents
specialized construction work.
accomplish
Sever-
could
form
their
objectives,
signed
collective
long
bar-
so
as union employees
al subcontractors
'
building
contracts with
trade
subcontractors
gaining
were willing to
project
question
“The
presented
with nonunion
is whether
work on the
Company
respondents, by
employees
us-
demanding
the Insurance
nonunion,
pressure
In-
ing
employees
to enforce their demands
unwilling
only
Company were
members of
be em-
surance
Union
ployed
Company’s
respondents
on the
recognize either
Insurance
project, attempted
Insur-
agent
to become
to cause the
bargaining
Company
against
ance
Union.
to discriminate
members of
nonunion
violation
§
the undis-
that under
“We conclude
8(a)
Act,
(3)
thereby violating
infer-
the'
puted
reasonable
facts
8(b)
(2) of the Act. The evidence
§
it
therefrom, which
ences deductible
respondents repeat-
established
Board
province
peculiar
was the
edly endeavored,
through
both
direct
fully war-
determine, the Board was
pressures,
and indirect
to induce the
concluding
ranted Company
its
Insurance
to abandon
pressures
designed to create
open shop policy
employ
mem-
only
stop
the subcontractors
cause
would
respondents,
bers
their subcontracts
the work
pressures
respond-
midst of such
com-
as to
Company, well
Insurance
urged
Company
ents
Insurance
recognize
pel the Insurance
sign a
bargaining
collective
contract
bargain-
respondents as
one
tantamount to
a closed
think
employees. We
agent
agreement
illegal union-security
and an
follow,
con-
when
must
that conclusion
agreement.
pressure that
to the
given
sideration
at the
been directed
had theretofore
*28
respondents
“The
contend that
of
employers,
purpose
secondary
the
upon
Company
demands
the Insurance
them to
was
induce
plainly
which
required
would not have
the dismissal
primary
the
doing business
cease
any
employees currently
of
of its
on
latter
сompel the
thus
employer and
job. Certainly,
objective
the
the
of
recognize
employees and
unionize its
respondents
compel
the
towas
the In-
bargaining
as their
respondents
Company
employing
surance
to cease
agent.
men, including
pres-
nonunion
both its
But,
employees.
ent and its- future
(2) Violations
8(b)
“The
respondents
only
the demands of
went
contend,
they
far
so
as
Act makes
would still
of the
8(a)
(3)
“Section
8(b) (2)
have been a violation of
practice for an em-
of
labor
§
it an unfair
proscribes
section
discrimination,
Act. That
union
regard
in
ployer
attempts
any
to cause discrimination
employment, or
based
of
or tenure
hire
membership,
only
on union
against
employment, to
of
condition
or
term
specific
membership
employees,
po-
discourage
in
but
against
also
encourage or
employees.
tential
except
‘prohibition
insofar
is
any
organization,
labor
union-security
not confined to those
in
instances
a valid
permitted
as
specific
employees
non-union
of the
which
are
By
8(a)
(3) (i)
agreement.
§
unlawfully
against.
discriminated
to en-
is
Act,
employer
forbidden
extends
well
as
with a
instances in which
contract
a
ter into
union,
agents,
or its
seeks
labor
to cause
unless such
organization,
labor
accept
conditions
of
un-
representative
‘is the
organization
non-union,
which
employee
der
provided in
Section
as
employees
n applicant
job
will be unlawfully dis-
appropriate collective-bar-
9(a),
unit,
against.’
criminated
agreement
L. R.
[N.
B. v.
covered
gaining
Union,
Cir.,
National
respond-
Maritime
2
175
Neither of
made’.
when
F.2d
See also
em-
Piezonki
representative of the
686.]”
ents
Board,
National Labor
Company as
4
Insurance
of.the
ployees
Cir.,
iqq among purposes it did include of It is contended behalf securing of contract the conduct a Union conduct of despite the fact still 'in this case would unfair' labor the defendants amounted labor come within the definition “unfair Taft-Hartley Act practices under practice” 158(b) defined in 29 U.S.C.A. power to jurisdiction § court has state (4) the defendant unions because none of the defend- enjoin the acts and conduct representative had been certified as plant site ants in employees under 29 U.S.C.A. 159. § for two rea- Signal Oil and Gas that, pro- is because of the sons. The first Teamsters, The decision in Garner v. Chapter 120, 14(b), 61 visions Section l Helpers No. Chauffeurs & Loca Union U.S.Statutes, p. 151, 164(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 98 Dakota, and the laws of North to which we particularly applicable L.Ed. here. refer, exception will later Taft- employers That engaged case involved Hartley Act is created under which state interstate dispute commerce. No labor may enjoin acts and conduct of court respondents progress. strike was in defendants; that a second picket rotating established a line at may enjoin the acts conduct state employers’ platform. loading None of police powers of the defendants under the pickets employers. the state. They reading: “Local carried banners Chapter 14(b), 61 Section U.S.Stat- (A.' L.) Em Teamsters Union F. wants provides: p. 151, 164(b), utes U.S.C.A. § ployees Storage of Central Transfer Co. join gain wages, them hours “Nothing in this Act shall be con- working conditions.” The the execution authorizing strued peaceful but drivers other carriers application agreements requiring picket refused to cross line and thus a,, membership in organization hampered interchange freight un condition State drastically ionized concerns reduced Territory in which such execution employers. the business of the The courts application is prohibited or. State or picket below found that the *29 Territorial law.” employers to the ing was coerce into com 34-0114, Supp. pro- Section NDRC pelling influencing employees or : vides join the The court union. said: person deprived life, “No shall be of injurious “This an instance is not of liberty process property or without due conduct the which National Labor Re- right persons law. The of of work express power without lations Board is be abridged shall not denied or ac- prevent therefore either membership count of or nonmember- ‘governable is the state or it is en- ship labor organ- union or labor * * * tirely ungoverned.’ ization, all negation contracts or abrogation rights hereby of such are “Congress has taken in hand this invalid, to be void and declared unen- particular type controversy it where forceable.” affects interstate commerce. In lan- parts guage almost identical to the law Under this section of state both forbidden, statute, Pennsylvania it has shop and union closed contracts are unions to exert certain types.of and unenforceable. void employees through coercion on the me- employer. record does not warrant the The conclu- dium of the is not neces- solely picketing sary appropriate that was or for us for the sion surmise forcing requiring Labor plain- or National how the employers to contracts have decided might execute Board falling tiff this contro- presented petitioners category. versy If we should in either assume 'it-to' pri- application body. power duty prohibited by aof contract that Board, state provision employ- not law. A lies with the in a state
mary decision practice Board ment law an is clear that the made it unfair labor with us. But it power entertain for to enter an with into all union vested .an agreement its own petitioners’ issue with of his grievance,, .the and, respondents approved specified unless complaint against majority hearing, employees. company pending seek final in- agreement District entered an Court into such United States injury prevent irreparable securing approval of junction without required was be- employees. their case number of An em- petitioners while ployee question pay then is who refused to dues was considered. dis- courts, State, charged request at through its the union. The whether controversy and Wisconsin may same board ordered his reinstatement adjudge the ** compensation pay of loss on the form of relief. extend own ground that the maintenance of member- federal that when “We conclude ship clause was violative of the Wisconsin constitutionally exerted is power upheld by Its action which was statute. in- public private or protection pursuant was taken state law to a both, supreme terests, it becomes the or in a coming had been manner violated cur- and cannot of -the land law 14(b) of Section within terms by a or extended tailed, circumvented quoted which I have Act merely it will because procedure stаte above. That disclaimer does not include right. private doctrine apply some as such the act of second- right private extent To ary boycott. must in mind We bear one, public may conflict with injunction in this case directed the extent superseded. To former the act of not execution require is found public interest application prohibited by a contract private instead enforcement official law. state ordinarily be initiative, will latter No. Local Union United Ass’n of course, in en- Congress, Of excluded. Plumbers, Graham, here, Journeymen, etc. have legislation we acting such 73 S.Ct. L.Ed. supplemental alternative save can point. terms, express remedies state fit. if it sees implication, clear some question “The here is basic whether of Virginia, the Commonwealth con- allegations, the basis “On sistently the Constitution of the presented this have could petitioners *30 States, may enjoin peaceful United Rela- Labor National to grievance picketing pur- it is when carried on for were respondents The Board. tions poses with Virginia in conflict before being summoned subject to Right to Statute.” Work We their conduct. body justify to subject to was not grievance think commerce was not Interstate involved. State.” tribunals of the in the litigation question of conflict There was no between jurisdiction. and state federal recently followed case Garner The Hoisting and Porta- v.Co. Const. in Texas primary purpose The first Union, Kan. 178 Local Engineers’ ble plaintiffs force the picketing was to to bar- 160. P.2d 286 defendant unions who gain with the were agencies bargaining extensively directly rely Algoma on not certified plaintiffs The plaintiffs performance hampering the in the v. Em- Co. Wisconsin & Veneer Plywood Board, contract with construction of their 336 U.S. 69 Relations ployment exerting and Gas sec- 691. This case did not Oil L.Ed. 93 S.Ct. plaintiffs ondary pressure on the through picketing. or It involved strike involve
171 Constitution, of the ‘Florida- F.S. force State Gas.Company to Signal Oil and A., adopted The November 1944. bargain with provides right section in effect security contracts and execute union persons never not work shall be denied point bargaining The them. abridged membership on the estab- account of or after reached еither before non-membership in Granting that union. picket line. lishment respondent-points con- In this connection purpose of defendants’ subordinate Act, contracts, 14(b) 29 section U.S.C.A. the execution was to secure duct § 164(b), provides ‘Nothing which prohibited application of which subchapter in this beg shall construed were also unlawful by state law and which Act, authorizing appli- execution or Taft-Hartley this under the agreements requiring cation of mem- of the defend- conduct does not remove the bership organization Na- in a labor as a control of the from the area of ants place 'employment it condition of State Board and Labor Relations tional Territory courts. in which such execution of the state jurisdiction within application prohibited by State acts of power prevent or Territorial law.’” that are violation general do not contravene Act and discussing this contention the court said: exclusively rests police power the state provision if is applicable “Even Board. Labor Relations National here, and pretermitting fact may also vio- fact that question an employer raised upon that impinge not law does late state employee an right whose Service, Inc. National Capital v. power. affected, would be there work is noth- Board, Cir., 9 F.2d 204 Labor Relations ing provisions in either of these 848. respondent duty of its relieves to bar- supersed- therefore "Controlling duly accredited gain bargain- curtailed power cannot be ing federal matters, representative. These though ground by the State even all, pertain only relevant would than that be different intervention negotiated. kind of contract to supremacy has been which federal on employer’s duty negotiate It is the Anheuser-Busch, v. Weber exercised.” faith, parties though the are even good 480, 487, S.Ct. 99 Inc., 75 agree contract, N. L. unable 546. L.Ed. Co., American Nat’l Ins. R. B. v. 1027; 824, 96 L.Ed. Labor Relations Board v. National White Cir., Mayer, B. 196 F.2d L. R. N. Company, Engineering Construction 286.” Cir., petition 204 F.2d involved a National Labor to enforce order the court reached the Thus conclusion that requiring employer Board although demanding the union was a union with a union as the accredit- bargain named contrary shop agreement to the right employer’s representative fabri- ed provisions work of the Florida Constitution employees. cating con- *31 only the the demand related kind of con- : tended negotiated duty to be and it tract was the employer despite bargain pro- of the the the business “that because union’s 14(b) of of the visions Section Taft-Hart- demanding a shop’ ‘union agent Act, 164(b), ley 29 U.S.C.A. and the Na- agreement the which § with requiring power Board had respondent’s 'Labor Relations the the tional has effect eventually employer to join union, require bargain. By employees to proceeding spir- would seem that analogy whole violates the it the case provisions demands to Work’ for a union ‘Right before us it contrary to Rights our state of the Declaration of law which section engaged. not- National Labor Rela- preclude does facts were -The (cid:127) acting under the Taft- 'here tions Board from disclosed not warrant the exercise do police power justify Hartley of the Law. state or its invocation ground state court as U.S.Statutes, 151, Chapter p. injunctive for relief. 164(b), Í4(b), 29 does U.S.C.A. § Section exception application not afford an BURKE, J.,C. concurs. deprive Act so as Labor Relations Board of the National and conduct of
jurisdiction over acts per- and defendants here involved thus jurisdiction
mit a state court exercise enjoin and conduct. and such acts
over the conduct
The trial felt granting
of the defendants warranted application injunction plaintiffs’, for police powers general under the Respondent, KESSLER, Christ Plaintiff and question was A considered state. similar Local, Allen-Bradley etc. v. Wisconsin Board, Employment Relations THOMPSON, W. Sivert Commissioner Highway Department, State In Defendant 1154. that case 62 S.Ct. L.Ed. Appellant. and the state cease desist order of board power upheld police under the No. 7541. pro- being repugnant to the and as not state Supreme of North Court Dakota. Labor Relations visions of the National be held to within order was Act. The Jan. 1956. police proper exercise of state’s Rehearing Denied March 1956. prevent mass power to factory, threatening injury to employer’s property, obstructing
employees or egress to or interfering еntrance obstructing or factory, interfer- streets, roads, public use ing with the sidewalks, picketing the domiciles only case evi- employees. pickets other conduct of dence picket rotating line maintaining than comes from the wit- carrying banners engineer Cook, construction field
ness Company, who stated Oil and Gas mornings through first two gate men at the front day were there their necks who around cameras taking pictures of cars seemed through gate and one coming drivers taking li- persons were down other two activity The latter plate numbers. cense every day pickets almost continued appears to There have been there. *32 n There threats violence. acts or no anyone was disturbed evidence
no purposes activity deterred notes said: Supreme Court States pencil paper ostensibly to record Management Labor national “The identity persons vehicles Act, point- have before as we engaging in business intercourse with states, out, much to leaves ed Plaintiff, Company, Oil Field Service from has refrained though Congress effecting ingress egress to and spell must much. We telling us how plant from the site of Oil & Gas indications of con- conflicting out Company and the maintenance of a state the area in which will gressional picket rotating forth, line back and permissible.” is still action directly across and plant in front of the entrances so as to create a psychologi- open area left One to the states cal, actual, if not an obstruction to the Act is the enforce free flow of traffic to and from the ment of measures as deemed neces plant site, and other coercive and in- protection sary of the citizens of timidating which, conduct if prolonged, the state. likely is violence, to induce against public peace policy against is not state excluded from ex dignity of the State of North Da- ercising police-power if the unfair labor kota and is subject to restraint practice illegal attended conduct coer District Court of the State of North Wagon cive in nature. See Milk Drivers Dakota as an exercise police Union, Dairies, etc. Meadowmoor power reserved to the State of North