*1 355 26 MOTORS, INC., v.
TOWN & COUNTRY NO. 328. LOCAL UNION Picketing—Findings. Labor Relations — 1. place plaintiff’s Picketing, defendant union at conducted join persuade plaintiff’s employees to in order to business held, enjoin peaceful picketing suit to and interference union operations. business witb Board —Commerce. Labor Relations 2. Same —National grants to the national relations act labor national labor The “affecting power over labor relations matters board relations (29 USOA, commerce,” by the aet term is defined as sueh 141-187). §§ Relations Board —Jurisdiction. Labor Same —National .3. labor relations board jurisdiction of national articles flow the direct stream tested or not to be whether commerce, upon the of the business involved size of interstate trade, intended to of its but the board was or the volume '[2— [5,14] ,[1] 31 Am '[3,4,13] 31 Am ,[12]- 31 Am (cid:127)[7,15] [2] [10] [8] [9] [11] State court’s Legality 4,13] Construction and ALR2d 612, 627. agement aet employees and 31 Am 31 Am 31 Am 31 Am 11 Am toas employees Am Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, of, 1338. Jur, Jur, Jur, relations aet. jurisdiction, powers, References Jur, Jur, Contempt Labor § Labor § Labor Labor Jur, Labor Labor §§ Constitutional Law 319. join Labor as to terms or conditions injunction against, peaceful Labor § §§ union § 446. 190. 514. 426. enjoin picketing § 572. 5. 32 ALR2d § application of national § 211. 40 et 325. Points absence et seq. § eetera, 1026. as affected Headnotes dispute of labor board. picketing between employment. labor labor employer relations to force man- ALR v. Local Union No. T. & C. 1959] which, provoked practices unfair or control prevent affecting and labor disturbances provoke strikes tended 141-187). (29 USCA, commerce interstate §§ *2 Board —Jurisdiction. Relations Labor 4. Same —National jurisdiction retail over a relations board national labor The part agency, as a of the manu- operating sales automobile system under a direct franchise national distribution facturer’s subject inspection minute to its manufacturer and from the control, agency’s repeated unfair where the comprehensive burdening disputes or ob- to lead to practices tended labor 141-187). (29 USCA, structing commerce interstate §§ Injunction—Jurisdiction. Same —State Courts — 5. charges of unfair power to deal with court is without A State injunction request by way of of em- practices at labor jurisdiction subject the national ployer to the of board, jurisdiction in of a cession of labor relations the absence agency, the board declines to take to a State even when jurisdiction employer failure to meet certain over for such (29 interstate business standards based on dollar volume of USCA, 141-187). §§ Courts —Due Process —Jurisdiction. 6. litigant process deprive A State be held to of due court cannot any process if such no to render what- court has soever. Contempt of Court. 7. —Jurisdiction may contempt in for of an order One not be held disobedience or command which the court had no to make. Competition. 8. Words Phrases —Free tempоral competition” applies to all conflicts of The term “free interests, including competition between employers employed. the Peace —Peaceful Labor of Picket- 9. Relations —Breaches ing. through prose- may peace of be redressed criminal Breaches peaceful picketing of damages but cution and civil action subjecjt relations aet employer an the national labor relief, through any, if the national labor relations a matter for board. Compulsion. Speech 10. Same —Ereedom —Economic labor, legitimate objectives, the'pursuit The denial to of its - acquaint large its side public of freedom to at controversy employer is no an less denial of free may the notification also exert an speech because economic compulsion. op Speech. Law —Freedom 11. Constitutional speak speak is the freedom to while The essence of freedom speech may yet effective. Injunction—Unpair Labor Practices. Relations — Labor national labor relations act con- The amendment injunctive relief reject at the instance the scheme tinued imposed on employers though it new limitations the ac- although labor unions; the national relations board tivities against injunctive types all empowered relief to seek matters, public acting, practices, unfair labor rights рurely private vindication interest and USCA, 187). § Relations Board —Jurisdiction. Labor 13. Same —National with the board has been entrusted national labor relations policy and such of the national uniform administration sought from the board must be be available relief as though judicial eourts, had relief in a even rather than the *3 might have been more available State court been made 187). (29 USCA, prompt § 14. Same —State Rela- Courts —Jurisdiction—National Labor tions Board. jurisdiction, elementary eourts are without the most sense, subject in the field of labor relations of the national labor relations board. Contempt 15. Court —Jurisdiction. —State contempt, for Order of issued a State court violation of an injunction issue, which such court then had no USCA, 160[a]). is void § W.),
Appeal (Glenn from Sub- Delta; Jackson J. (Docket 4, mitted 1958. No. No. 14, June Calendar 47,162.) January 12, Decided 1959. partnership predecessor Bill of Town &
n Country corporation, Motors, Inc., against Interna- Local No. affiliated with Union Ware- Teamsters, Chauffeurs, iional Brotherhood Helpers America, and certain housemen and 1959] T. & Motors C. Local Union No. enjoin picketing officials,
its and interference with operations. plaintiff. its business Decree for De- appeal. fendants Reversed and bill dismissed. plaintiff. Fitsharris, McGinn & Michael DeFant, F. David Previant and Saul Cooper (Padway, Goldberg counsel), Previant, & for defendants. employer, J. This suit between an Town Smith, Country Michigan,*
& labor Motors, Escanaba, and a organization, Local Union No. Interna tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Ware- Chauffeurs, Helpers housemen and America, and officers, organizer acting a labor on its behalf. The relief sought restraining is an order the union and its agents picketing employer’s place from of busi engaging well ness, as as from in certain related activities. pattern
*4 The case a familiar follows of industrial attempt union warfare. The made an unsuccessful employees organize Country & Town Mo employees tors. because Whether this were they lot with their satisfied whether were dis couraged organizing employer, from their as the charged both before the national labor union relations in the trial we court, boa need not de rd† Picketing followed. The union cide. asserted wages, working hours, conditions at Town & Country were substandard destructive the union standards had theretofore been employment for its members in their rela established Williams -the name the to as NLRB. [*] † Hereinafter Plaintiffs firm’s and of Town successor, at Olaf W. the national the commencement & Town & Country partnership Peterson, labor relations board shall be referred Country Motors. of Motors, The the suit suit Inc. doing was were William R. business continued under Michigan Reports.
tionships competing purpose concerns. The picketing .the The defendants con controverted. public purpose that the to inform the tend was support, picketing a and that the was con enlist its stitutionally
protected right of freе exercise plaintiff purpose speech. The contends that the was urge employees compel encourage it to its to to compel join to inter union, words, in other to the right employees’ self-organization. fere with The of violence and we conclude were no overt acts trial court found that there picketing
that the was peaceful. temporary restraining
A order issued con was tempt alleged proceedings viola were initiated hearing Upon a the trial merits, tion thereof. on purpose picketing court found that indeed to Country compel Town & Motors to inter self-organization employees’ right of fere with its injunction phrased permanent in broad and issued principally that, The contend terms. defendants Country an Motors, & Town since authorized business dealership, is one that affects automobile juris court had no the circuit commerce, .interstate presented, in and decide issues diction hear Congress through national enactment that the pre-empted area act,* this labor relations taken The defendants have relations. law of labor pendency appeal during general Court, to this in the contempt proceedings held decision abeyance. scope jurisdic inquiry relates Our first national labor relations act of the NLRB. tion mat grants over relations the NLRB might “affecting Herein, note, we commerce.”† ters *49 † Stat National Stat (29 TJSOA, 160[a]). labor relations as amended, § aet, 61 Stat § 10(a), 49 Stat TJSOA, §§141-187). amended, *5 1959] T. & Motors C. 31 Union No. 328. Local lies distinction between snch cases Atlantic Company Line R. Coast tucky, Co. v. Standard Oil Ken of (48 270), 275 257 US S Ct 72 L 107, ed relied upon by appellees, upon in which the court was called or to decide whether merchandise “constituted merce” or not the movement of certain
any part com interstate “integral parts of their interstate busi dealing ness.” This not our issue. areWe vastly concept, different defined in the act itself: ‘affecting “The term commerce’ means in comm burdening obstructing erce,* or or or the commerce having tending free flow of or commerce, or led dispute burdening obstructing lead to a labor merce or the free flow of commerce.” or com USCA, 29 152(7). § “affecting term, This commerce,” it held, has been Congress intended to utilize the full extent powers of its under the commerce clause. Polish National Alliance Board, v. National Labor Relations (64 1509). 643 L 1196, US S Ct 88 ed Thus the of the NLRB is not to be tested whether or not interstate articles flow the direct stream of
commerce, or, indeed, the size business involved or the volume trade. Congress act on its face, “evidences intention of constitutionally given to exercise whatever regulate adoption to it to commerce of meas- prevention speci- for the ures or control of certain practices provoke fied tend to acts—unfair or —which provoke strikes or labor disturbаnces affect- ing commerce. interstate Given the other needful commerce be affected in the conditions, same or but Columbia Columbia or other Territory, [*] “The term 'commerce’ means communication Columbia or The term “commerce” is defined through Territory, or or or the any foreign country.” any any Territory, any Territory among other State District or between or several trade, Columbia, or any Territory any foreign country between the United (29 USCA, traffic, commerce, transportation, States, points or or between the District within States § 152[6]) or the the same State the District District as follows: any State, any proportion
manner and to the same extent to its great it be small.” volume, whether National La- Fainblatt, Relations Board v. bor US 1014). 83 L also, ed Labor S Ct National See, Laughlin Corp., Relations Board v. Jones & Steel *6 1352). 301 US 81 L S Ct ed ALR Country Plaintiff & Town Motors holds what the contradiction) (without union describes a “stand- as selling ard form” franchise from General Motors Corporation. apparently captioned It “Direct Agreement Selling Dealer Division for Cadillac Motor Car Oldsmobile Division of General Motors Corporation.” portions provide before us part that the dealer shall have “nonexclusive” privilege selling “parts Oldsmobilemotor vehicles, he accessories,” shall make detailed and periodic reports person to the seller, that “each paragraph agreement named in third of this shall energy time, devote his full attention and con- dealership place business;” duct that dealer’s including of business, “salesroom, his station, service parts only and accessories facilities” shall not be satisfactory subject inspec- seller, but to its tion. Written consent from the moreover, seller, be must obtained order to move to a location, new “including any location;” lot or used-car a uniform (and system accounting “designated the seller” examination) open to seller’s must be maintained “in dealer, strict accordance with the ac- prescribed by counting seller;” manual an “adver- tising proceeds fund” established from the portion expended the sales of' cars, be “in paying advertising,” por- the cost local another (the portion) “factory” be tion used the “seller type advertising of such in such and at media opinion place as, time and of seller, such will effectively serve most the dealer or needs interests by seller.” We need not as determined further sum- 1959] T. & C. Local Union No. lengthy provisions super-
marize the before us. The agreed comprehen- vision is both minute and sive. repeatedly jurisdic-
The NLRB has held that its comprehends tion extends to and retail automobile operating agreements (whether, dealers under such particular it exercises cases, not). Thus the case of Baxter Brothers, NLRB employer as 1480, involved, does this an case, hold- ing Corporation agreement. a General Motors sales respect With follоws to its held board
(p 1481): recently “Having policy re-examined board con- cerning opinion jurisdiction, the exercise of are of the we employee integral part an that when is an enterprise, of a multistate the board should exercise jurisdiction. taking discretion in favor of We consider franchised automobile dealers, such as the enterprises respondents, to be nature, of this even though, locally as here, the business owned *7 reaching and make all its sales within the State. In conclusion, the this board has considered the fran- arrangements respondents chise under which the operate they and the fact that an function as essen- system tial in a element nation-wide devoted to manufacture distribution of automobiles. Ac- cordingly, policies we find that it will effectuate the jurisdiction respond- of the act to assert over the ents.” agreement closely parallels us, fact, before in
that of Howell Chevrolet Co. v. National Labor Re- (74 215), Board, lations 346 482 US S Ct 98 L ed 214, wherein local retail “Howell’s establishment was closely supervised by “sweep- General Motors,” with * * * ing control of the business reserved Selling Agree- in a General Motors ‘Direct Dealer ” (p 484) ment.’ It was there that held “Howell was part’ integral system ‘an of General Motors’ national Michigan Reports. (cid:127)of distribution. Under these circumstances justified board was in that finding repeated Howell’s unfair labor tended to lead to practicеs disputes or commerce burdening obstructing among the It follows that the board States. had act to facts it found.” Such, also, National Labor Relations v. Bill holding Board Daniels, Inc., 346 (74 305, US 918 98 L ed S Ct 413), 202 F2d reversing, 579, a auto involving Michigan dealer, mobile under with agreement sales operating the Ford Motor “entirely who sold within Company, the State of within that Michigan, State, 99% parts, accessories and motor purchased cars from Ford within the In the case Michigan.” before us finally note, we to also, respect done, that business purchases by from plaintiffs out side State amount over $246,000, hard figure so ly insignificant as to come within the interstate de minimas doctrine. National Labor Relations Board v. Stoller (CCA), F2d 307, certiorari denied, US S Ct L 517, 98 ed 1074), and rehearing denied, 347 958 (74 US 98 L S Ct ed 1102, 1103). Daniels, in Howell Chevrolet and Bill
Here, as the NLRB “had supra, is clear act.” despite But over plenary interstate relations the board affecting commerce, start, has declined to juris from exercise such before it. diction certain cases Such coming accomplished been screening through appli cation of certain standards.* Whether such stand ards have been the case reached before us is a question manner, parties approach gingerly are not suspect they quite us sure. leading *8 contents itself with the appellee assertion that July NLRB’s [*] For 15, general Revised are found Jurisdictional standards NLRB Standards see 15 NLRB Ann Ann released Rep 2-5. Rep 5-7; press on 1959] T. & C. v. Local Union No. engaged
“plaintiff was in intrastate commerce.” To “it defendants seems that the NLRB de would jurisdiction” cline to exercise its because of jurisdictional yardsticks promulgated the NLRB. “only It that month, adds this NLRB chair however, Boyd Mr. a la man, bor subcommittee that Leedom, testified before house the NLRB revise its * * * standards. or would not exercise whether NLRB Hence, would in the circum present open question.” stances of case at an this opinion further Defendants state that “the of the jurisdictional trial court sets forth the 1954 stand ards insofar as those standards relate to establish Country Town & ments as Motors.” The “di requires rect standard” inflow there referred to “an enterprise goods which or receives from material, of the State, out valued at $500,000 more.” As the trial this standard court held con that, ceivable “the maximum, combined totals out of State inflow and the inflow over the Straits of Mackinac amounts to $423,859.39, is far below promulgated.” the new standards As to the outflow the trial standard court found total “the being considerably of these is $26,443.86, amounts promulgated.” than the minimum less standards only, the trial that there then, Not did court‘find jurisdictional to reach the was failure NLRB’s the'opinion such, also, but the field standards examiner of the regional officeof the NLRB. The secretary-treasurer by Mr. Arnold Alsten, union, charge had filed a with the NLRB of Local Country engaged had Town & was and been unfair respect practices. following thereto the With appears plaintiff’s letter addressed to record^ counsel: *9 Michigan Reports. :36 “Re: Town & Motors Country
Case No. 18-CA-742 “Dear Sir: “This will confirm our conversation today of I
which advised you that our investigation has shown that the Country Town & at Eseanaba, Motors Mich- would igan, accepted not be the National Labor Relations Board as within being jurisdiction. its you know, “As this decision is based n signedinformation us on given April to the (cid:127)effect that of approximately $20,000 the copartner- ship sales were made to persons outside of the State (cid:127)of Michigan and that purchases were than less of $500,000, which none were made from points out-
side of The current standards Michigan. that require Board company ‘a operating single retail store or service establishment must only’ make annual directly sales out of $100,000 State at least in value purchases directly make annual and/or from out of $1,000,000 State at least in value make annual purchases from indirectly out of at least $2,000,000 in value.
“This information has been given union involved in this case the statement if not will I withdrawn, necessary recommend that the be dismissed charge by the regional director. This action would be taken next week except for the I fact that be in Michigan shall and unable to take any action. “The recommendation will therefore be made as
n soonafter 1956 as time will May permit. are herewith inclosing copy
“We of the Nine- Report teenth Annual of the National Labor Rela- year tions Board for the 30, 1954, fiscal еnded June (cid:127)on 4 which, under page paragraph will find 4, you the information cited above.
“Very yours, truly “Ray Jenkins, C. “Enclosure “Field Examiner.” T. & C. 1959] Local Union No. the 1954 jurisdictional
A portion standards quote NLEB we the margin hereof.* * “We have determined that in future eases the board will assert jurisdiction'— “1. Standards for Other-Than-Retail [General Establishments:] annually enterprises which meet following over one or more .standards: *10 “(1) Direct standard: inflow enterprise goods “An which receives or materials from out of $500,000 .State, valued at or more. “ ( )2 Direct standard: outflow enterprise produces “An goods which or ships handles and goods the State, performs out of or services outside the which located, enterprise $50,000 valued at or more. enterprise actually “The itself must ship goods the to the out-of- .State destination. “(3) “An Indirect standard: inflow enterprise goods which receives or materials from other n enterprises in the same State which those other enterprises received State, $1,000,000 from out valued at or more. “However, goods the must be received the purchaser ultimate they an the form which entered the State. “(4) “An Indirect standard: outflow enterprise goods which furnishes or services to other enter- prises coming subparagraph within above, (2), public or to utilities systems, or transit or instrumentalities or channels of commerce and links, their essential which jurisdictional meet the standards estab- enterprises; lished for sueh and “(a) goods directly Sueh or services are products, utilized services, processes enterprises $100,000 or of sueh and are at valued n or more; or “(b) services, goods regardless use, Such or of their are valued $200,000 or .at more. “(5) Multistate standard: “An operated establishment other than retail integral whieh is as an part enterprise; of a multistate “(a) particular any establishment involved meets of the fore- going standards; or “(b) The direet enterprise $250,- outflow of the entire amounts to more; or or “(e) The enterprise indirect outflow of the entire amounts to $1,000,000 or more. “We have further employer’s determined that unless an volume operations meets one of independent jurisdictional the board’s new standards, we will not accumulate those standards order to assert jui-isdiction. “However, direet and indirect inflow in applying be added indirect inflow standard. “2. Links of Interstate transportation [Intrastate over Commerce:] operations or other local link activities constitute a in the chain only of interstate commerce where the annual income received upon pass correctness however, not,
doWe bar, the case at application standards regional officeof the court or the trial either upon question pass wheth we Nor do NLRB. ultimately not would NLRB not would er or pur matter been had the assumed have through administrative channels the various sued to final pass ruling these not thereon. We do they decision. are essential matters because that the business of heretofore have concluded We Country came within the & Town NLRB. Howell Chevrolet Co. lations Re v. National Labor supra; National Board, Labor Relations supra. being Daniels, Inc., This v. Bill Board squarely Guss v. Utah the matter is ruled case, (771 ed Board, 598, 1L 353US Ct Labor Relations S companion Diego Building 601); cases, 2d San (77 Garmon, 26 Meat Cutters v. Trades Council US S Ct Amalgamated 618); 1 Fairlawn L ed2d Inc., L ed Meats, 604, 1 Ct 353US S 613). (The 2d before against last case does the case involved, as *11 employer injunction an for an
us, an action premises. picketing to union of its Prior unsuccessfully picketing, attempted the union had plaintiff’s employees. petition organize the No had NLRB.) filed with the been issue far as cases, The settled these so it affects present the decision, courts, had before our been particular company from involved services which constitute $100,000. part a no less interstate commerce totals than jurisdiction announced will be “It was further asserted over $100,000 companies (1) receiving intrastate least transit at an- nually transportation passengers; (2) as a link in and interstate wholly operating partly companies transit and over or interstate $100,000 deriving annually (a) operations from at least interstate (b) transportation passengers from link combined intrastate operations.” interstate and addition, published In for standards were some 12 additional cate- (e.g., gories cerns, doing business, retailing сoncerns national con- defense buildings, chain's, dealers, franehised et multistate retail office cetera). 1959] No. 328. T. &C. v. Local Union pro years, Congress and had NLRB, and respect of discussion.* With a torrent duced jurisdiction by assumption the State courts ju NLRB or refused to exercise failed the event argued, that failure hand, it was on one risdiction, land do result in no-man’s situation so to would employer employee where remedy would be without both prac great number of unfair labor as to tices. a situation that cannot be viewed with This is n equanimity by any citizen of an in or detachment (Violence, always course, dustrial State. remains n controllable Ilill the local authorities. See [65 Florida, Watson, ex rel. US S Ct 1782].) argued 89L ed Per contra, assumption by courts of State hodge-podge regulation in a would result in a field uniformity regulation congres wherein was the opening competition intent, sional door to be tween States for on the business inducement of just laws, “favorable” labor we as have States with corpora “favorable” divorce laws and “favorable” Conflicting authority moreover, would, tion laws. commonplace themselves, not "be within the States (who years only employers as to individual in lean might fall the NLRB standards, dollar short subject control, thus while in the harvest be years subject might exceed such standards control), neighbor to Federal but also between company ing employers, being one under the stаnd subject jurisdiction, neighbor to State ards and subject being juris over the standards and to NLRB effects their diction, obvious relative com positions. petitive of the State 46 65 Tale LJ 86. emption * Leading analyses Mich Rev *12 Taft-Hartley L the Area of 593; Act are Tobriner and and State Jurisdiction over Labor Note, NLRB New Entrance into Inaction, Grodin, Taft-Hartley Cal L “No-Man’s-Land,” Rev 663; Smith, Relations, Pre
40 355 be established with refer would first have to courts jurisdictional a standards, task to the NLRB’s ence magnitude heretofore, which we hinted have interpretation complicated involving stand accuracy application, ards uncertain presenting in each case determination Federal question. was would, moreover, Our and wane with the NLRB’s and inter amendments pretations jurisdictional of its standards. These and respect interpreta similar considerations to the scope tion and administration of an act national in its point repeated give holdings the United supreme States court to the effect board, that “the empowered pass upon court, and not the State such issues in the first instance.” Weber v. Anheus (75 er-Busch, Inc., 348US 468, 480, S Ct 99 L ed 546). See, also, Teamsters Union York N. New 350 US & H. S Ct 227, 100 Co., H. R. 166), L ed wherein it was held: “Respondent contends, however, that even if rail- L'oads seek the aid of the NLRB, it was not required conduct was neither petitioners* to do in this so case because protected by pro section 7 nor 8(b) (4) management respondent’s hibited section of the labor act.* relations amended Whether As we earlier, noted complaint alleged violations of the act. respond act the was violated or whether, as question ent now claims, not, is, course, for the board determine.” powerful compet
That a choice between such ing eventually considerations would have to be made years. been obvious Under the commerce' supremacy clauses † Constitution Congress history choice that of the and the governing legislation discloses that it was de- [*] USCA, † See Gibbons v. §§ Ogden 158(b) (1824), (4).—Reporter. US (9 Wheat) .(6 L ed 23). *13 T. & C. v. Local Union No. 1959] 41 liberately Congress. made the This is made Amalgamated clear in Association Street Rail of Employees Employment way v. Wisconsin Relations (71 Board, 340 398 L 383, 397, 359, US S Ct 95 ed 874), (the 22 ALR2d 364, in which it held foot was court): notes are those of the United States “When amended the Federal in 1947, act Con only questions gress that have been it cognizant policy was not of the argued before ns these in cases, but problems balancing also well aware of the relationships legisla State-Federal which 1935 its legislative history tion had raised. the 1947 act refers to the decision this court in Bethlehem (1947), York Co. v. New Labor Board Steel 330 US 1234), handling L 1026, S Ct 91 ed and, its presented by problems Congress case, that jurisdiction that it demonstrated knew how to cede Congress full the States.23 knew well its legislation ‘preempts labor the field that the act meaning insofar as commerce within the covers ability the act is concerned’24and demonstrated its spell particularity to it out with those areas in which regulation operative.25 desired State This judicial exercise of court, the its function, must comprehensive legisla and take valid Federal regulation tion and invalid as enacted declare impinges legislation.” on that subdivision thereof.’ n thwarted this feature of the exclude the role proviso applies. Federal Ill), covered islation. A 10(a) See, States “24 “23 “26 proviso also, minority HR See sections Section §§ of the 1947 only where the State law is consistent from act, 158(d), 164(b), 172(e), that States were to Rep even This insures of section the Federal 10(a) 29 USC No. operation legislation. S 8(d), 14(b), 202(e) views to same act ” of the 1947 Rep 10(a) 80th predominantly for (Supp aet. And sections No examples Cong., authorizes cession of play III), employees Aet, report, 1st national 80th in the Sess. §§ 29 USC local 173(b), congressional 152(2), Cong., id., labor area enterprises 203(b), pt 2(2) (1947). ‘any (Supp III), with the Federal in addition to section' 1st Sess 26 2, 38, 152(3), policy jurisdiction State or direction as to agreeing to which the 2(3) will not be USC specifically! regulation! § political 160(a). (1947). to the (Supp. as to leg- the; | [Jan.. problems
In other we have described words, clearly Congress were visible at time of supra. Case, the Bethlehem Steel It them met 10(a), enactment of section au- to, above referred thorizing cession of NLRB’s States certain It seem clear conditions. would beyond argument statutory provision that no ceding necessary would have been *14 coverage national act not had the the extended to its limit full of the constitutional involved. legislative, Against judicial this and economic, background sweep importance and of the de- Amalgamated Guss, in the cisions Meat and Cutters, supra, Cases, Garmon their control over our permissible areas of clear. action, become As was supra 9-12) (pp Guss, said in : proviso 10(a) hold that “We to section whereby may exclusive means States be enabled concerning Congress to act the matters which has # * * entrusted to the national labor relations board. by appellee deny are “We told that to the State jurisdiction a here will create vast no-man’s-land, subject regulation by agency to no or court. areWe by appellant grant jurisdiction told that to would produce Unfortunately, policy. confusion and with Federal conflicts may right. both be believe, We Congress expressed judgment that has however, its uniformity. Congress’ power favor Since among plenary, the area of commerce its the States is respected judgment policy must be whatever ob- jections there creation of a no-man’s-land. change “Congress is free to the situation at will. public In 1954 the senate welfare committee on labor recognized the existence of a no-man’s-land propоsed an amendment which would have em- powered agencies State courts and act jurisdiction.16 declination of national board’s The * * * “16 policy refusing 'The effect of the hoard’s to assert legal its been to create vacuum no-man’s-land 1959] & No. T. C. Local v. Union greatly reduce board can national labor relations juris- by reasserting tbe area of the no-man’s-land diction brought where States have their and, conformity policy, ceding into with Federal laws 10(a).17 testimony jurisdiction under section The ap- given the chairman board before shortly propriations the 1954 re- committees before jurisdictional standards indicates visions basicly making change were not its reasons budgetary. They had more to do with the board’s concept the class of to which it should devote cases (Footnotes attention.”18 are the United States its court’s.) permit the would, course, other conclusion Any indirectly accomplish what it could not NLRB to do namely, directly, cede to State with the Federal law. inconsistent of which was law (1957). L Rev 133 Mich See following from the should also be observed supra 24): (pp Amalgamated Case, Meat Cutters respondent’s “Although extent of interstate Building greater .activity than that in even seems Co., Kinard US Construction Trades Council *15 423), (74 will that 98 L ed we assume 373, S Ct 933 -with, discretion, board, has over which the its respect eases to jurisdiction. In these eases the situation seems to assert refused jurisdiction, States are will nоt assert the board to be that any deprived of so, injured parties are and the to do forbidden 1211, Cong, 83d 2d Sess Rep S No seek relief.' in which to forum board refuses to minority agreed that ‘When the Federal The 18. agencies or courts are jurisdiction, the State its within take a ease dispute jurisdiction, since the power to take without nevertheless though act, the Federal board declines Federal even is covered to the no-man’s-land—in thus a hiatus —a apply act. There is jurisdiction and the State its declines to exercise Federal board 2, Id., p jurisdiction.' Pt no have agencies and courts Cong 6203.” 2650, 100 has Ree bill, was recommitted. S committee’s “17 informed us its labor relations board The national unable, because that it has been amicus curiae in these eases brief 10(a), to con- to section proviso prescribed the conditions agreements. any cession summate appropri- “18 on house committee Hearings before subeommitee agencies, 83d independent labor related ations, department of 315, 309, 323.” Cong, 2d Sess
44 board, is a this would decline case where it was that obvious jurisdiction. “On this view of the our case, decision in Guss p Utah Board, Labor ante, Relations 1, controls. If proviso 10(a) the relations to section of the national labor- operates act exclude to State labor boards disputes jurisdic from within national board’s agreement, tion in the absence of a cessiоn it must also exclude courts. State See Garner v. Teamsters 228). Union, 485, 346 US 161, S Ct 98 L ed The conduct here restrained —an effort a union representing majority employees of his compel employer agree shop an to a union con tract—-is conduct of which the national act taken has 8(b)(2), § hold. Section 141, USC, Stat (b)(2). supra, Garner v. Union, Teamsters teaches that in such circumstances a State cannot afford a remedy parallel provided by to that the act. urged companions, “It is in this case and its how- permitted ever, that State action should be within the area of commerce which the national board has elected not to enter when action is consistent policy with the of the national act. We stated our belief in Guss v. Utah Labor Board, ante, Relations pp ‘Congress expressed at judg- its uniformity.’ Congress ment in favor of We add that agencies, did not leave it to State labor to courts to this court to decide how consistent with policy Federal State law must be. The make that given decision the first instance was guided by to the national labor board, relations language proviso 10(a). to section This case example why, is an excellent of one of the reasons Congress specific requirement be, was uniformity. Petitioners here contend that re- spondent guilty of what would be unfair practices under the national act the outcome proceedings before the national board would, entirely that reason, have been different from the proceedings outcome in the State courts. any opinion expressing Without as to whether the *16 1959] 45- Local Union No. & T. C. contention, factual we note that its bear's out record the appeals opinion no- court of takes Ohio activity alleged practice unfair of the labor account employer. it with cer- cannot be said Thus, of tainty is consistent court’s decree whether State act.” the national quotation peculiar paragraph of the The last requires applicability no- matter us. It to the before legislative superficial study of the his- more than tory (61 Taft-Hartley USCA, act Stat of the 141-187) rejection congressional §§ to observe the theory employers permitted that what was should be namely, apply precisely to do done, here injunctive directly against for the courts relief objectives peaceful picketing strikes and practices. the act denominated unfair labor ator Ives As Sen- put Cong Legis- 4839; NLRB, Rec History, Management lative Labor Relations Act,, p 1356), allowance of such course action would only flagrant serve to reintroduce “the abuses which brought about the enactment of the Norris-LaGuard- ia act.”
Lacking pursuant 10(a) State action to section providing whereby the manner act, the States- may acquire jurisdiction, we are without jurisdiction charges to deal with unfair within jurisdiction Amalgаmated NLRB. Guss, supra. Meat Cutters, Garmon, Appellee length argument' at discusses some process requires that due a it, take- court, of cases wherein is denied, or not asserted, stating the NLRB, that “The- question process of due mentioned the- supreme United supra, States court in Case, the Guss companion argument, cases.” how repeatedly brought ever, been of' attention supreme the the court. extensively by, It was discussed employer (Meat Cutters) in the Fairlawn Case, *17 rehearing, supra, de for was the motion and 857), (353 was 1 L ed2d 822, Ct nied US 77 S 948, rejected upon in solely and it. It was made based — 834); (309 parte Tex SW2d Twedell, 158 Ex Valley Chippewa Car & Red Cedar and Hehl v. in penters’ Council, 4 NW2d District Wis2d 226). no clear: have The answer is We deprive premises. liti a cannot be held the We process gant if we no of due have give any process cannot a whatsoever. We render day purposes, do not if, man a in court for we Moreover, his jurisdiction required by court. have the a n a proper respective the of the limits of observance system impels heady the Federal-State us to decline that de invitation we declare to be unconstitutional supreme the cisions of United States court. disposition peti of the It to consider remains contempt. out of fol arose tion This issue for picketing March lowing had commencedon : Peaceful Upon April 5, until 1956. 21, this it and continued temporary restraining issued, order date reading filing reciting the bill that “on and complaint and motion McGinn cause on this plaintiff, it is ordered and counsel Fitzharris, that show the above-named defendants” cause during day why injunction not certain should issue pendency and “in suit, of the the meantime” n said refrain were ordered to “desist and defendants picketing plant place and from business plaintiffs” acts, and from other named some of observed which, footnote,* as were and n further order n dividually, n the officers and members of said loeal Warehousemen affiliated with officer “And [*] and business an officer of operative paragraph and as an further International and said Helpers representative court, organizer ordered union, the said Brotherhood of Arnold the order America, of said defendants Local Union No. said Alsten, the meantime of restraint union, LeRoy union, union, individually, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, together Pettit, and each of Lial read and until Clausohm, individually, with all of as and as an follows: them, in- 1959] T. & G. No. Local Union possible hap- defined in the broadest pened terms. What dispute. Appellee thereafter is in asserts- that— complain restraining- summons,
“after bill of defendants, order stopped picketing during on had served defendants been April morning 6,. picketing after- 1956, and then recommenced on the an, April picketing 6th noon of and continued until why respondents- order to cause show defendants Eaymond Gangstad of Wallace Gasman should *18 contempt held in court was served. Service- during evening April had the of 7th.” servants, members, agents, employees, their and counselors and them, attorneys every absolutely and and one do each of desist and. plant picketing place refrain the of plaintiffs; from and business of engaging inducing, encouraging employees any in employer- or the of engage employment to to in a concerted refusal the course of their use, transport any goods, articles, or work or otherwise handle on any perform or or to purposes- materials commodities for the services preventing delivery goods, articles, of of the or materials com- modities, plaintiffs plaee business; to and from the and their of in- ducing encouraging employers plaintiffs engage or than other to in- to- a concerted to deliver cause their employees refusal or to not supplies goods, articles, deliver and from the materials and commodities to- plaintiffs plaee business; threatening of and their or ordering boycotting against persons supplying goods, articles, ma- plaintiffs place terials and to commodities and their of business or to, making goods, articles, of materials deliveries and commodities or plaintiffs plaee purchasing goods,, from the and their of business or articles, commodities, materials, selling goods, plain- automobiles or from services articles, materials, commodities, tiffs оr and or automobiles plaintiffs; interfering servants, employees services to with the agents coercing plaintiffs any of the or them in manner from ordinary business, carrying going of plaintiffs’ out ineluding- the course of plaintiffs’ plaee business, transportation to and fro-m of the plaintiffs’ articles, products, automobiles, goods, materials and' delivery plaintiffs’ commodities customers; sale or the thereof or the thereof to coercing attempting plain- from to foree coeree to, require employees join tiffs to their to Local Union No. 328 or attempt join force or employees coerce or to foree or coerce said to plaintiffs said union or to foree and coerce to enter into contract union; recognizing bargaining with said agent said union as for said employees, contrary will; threatening ordering boycotts- to their or against persons doing wishing plain- to business or do business with place threatening tiffs and of prevent pre- their business and to venting employees plaintiffs obtaining employment from at their- forcing plaintiffs join employees trades as a Union court.” means to Loeal! against will, No. their until the further order this- Appellants, on the other that— hand, state pertinent “It note that is the trial court made finding picketing that the no union continued in vio- restraining lation order. The testi- parte ex mony adduced course of the trial demonstrates only engagеd following that the conduct service of pamphlets. order was distribution of Such prohibited by conduct was not the order.” primary inquiry presented by contempt The proceedings relates nature of the order al legedly violated. We take as axiomatic the state ment many law made Mr. Justice "Wiest years ago contempt that “one not be held in for disobedience of an order or command which the court had no 220 make.” Mead, (In re 483.) Mich injunction legal then, effect WTiat, of the be- merely fore Is it in truth void? an us? Or obeyed erroneous to be until The order, set aside? questions, respect going all as is true in difficulty. courts, are without reasoning, answer must be not in found, abstract legislation, but in the intent of the framers of the light problems pressing viewed *19 solution. If this case than involved no more the ex- of the traditional the chancellor, ercise discretion of pre-emption, a in case devoid of the asserted Federal ponder thoughtful he be well advised to the would of the the conclusions one leaders of American century ago, Davis, the late John W. who a half Bar, placed injunction issuance of the ex parte the “glaring list of the first his abuses which have crept remedy.” (48 the into administration of this 6436.) might Cong Rec the chancellor, armed n strength he with the incalculable is, of the force ¡and majesty organized of the law and the ¡society only will be exercised itself, the die- 1959] T. & No. C. v. Local Union sensitive, the most a of conscience discretion tates the most exquisite, with a full that awareness his though temporary finally injunction, name, will conclusively dispose controversy of the before him. Mr. Holmes went to the heart of the Justice opinion matter his famous Guntner, Vegelahn 92, 1077, 167 Mass St NE 35 LRA 57 Am 443): Eep suggestion “I have seen the that made the conflict employers employed competition. is
between my I venture to assume that But none of brethren rely suggestion. policy If would on that the on narrowly expressed which our law founded too is may competition, in the term free we substitute struggle Certainly policy free for life. is not struggles persons limited between of the same competing applies class conflicts same end. It all temporal interests.” But this as we have not, an exercise noted, merely traditional discretion of the chancellor. supporting None of the doctrines interim obedience injunction unwisely, perhaps to an issued, a court primary jurisdiction, pending in the exercise of its challenge higher (namely, suprem- in a court acy principle man, law over court hav- ing primary jurisdiction has, also, “subjection amake mistake, of force to rea- son,” Pound, The Future Law, Yale L J 13), applicable is here involved to the case be- vitiating very fore us. Here the defect at lies assumption threshold power. Why? of the court’s blessings Even a court utilize the of hind- glance sight. past A at the will reveal the consid- legislation erations led to the enactment of the opinion,, us, before in our considerations, preclude any interpretation act con-; and its sequences It; employ. other than the one we here *20 '50 np of the the time have been observed
will issuance controversy injunction followed of the dealing practice years of for the usual what was enjoin simply dispute, is, with a labor Greene, and it. Frankfurter thus and break strike Injunction, study, The Labor in their authoritative proceedings in the fol- the results describe 201) (pp : lowing terms injunction history puts in action the labor “The beyond large part, question. dis- In matters some by first, the the caused, are and resentment satisfaction recognize that breaches refusal of courts through prosecution peace criminal and, second, be redressed damages, for action and civil expansion envelop- simple, judicial to an device of a absorbing, prohibited ing executive masse, conduct, en code affecting police the live- functions Especially those lives, of multitudes. lihood, even unimpaired prestige of our courts zealous lawof have how administration observed vague phases through sur- vast and decrees upon of courts the esteem law, mount which our but the its undermines government, reign depends. Not law by injunction,’ ‘government characterized consequences prosecution without criminal challenged. safeguards, been preliminary restraining in- and the “The order disputes junction reveal the most in labor invoked legal maladjustment. Temporary points crucial injunctive upon if or, notice, relief without notice, important upon relying affidavits, serves the dubious regardless staying conduct function of defendant’s justification restraint. The ultimate preliminary proceedings, in other make the words, * * * practical nullity. The final issue of relief preserve injunction [labor] cannot the so-called equilib- quo; remain the situation does not status knowledge. awaiting judgment full rium only suspension strikers; of activities affects employer strike, efforts to defeat the resumes his *21 1959] T. &C. Motors No. 51 Local Union v. resumes them free from the interdicted inter- suspension the Moreover, of activi- ferences. strike temporarily, may defeat even the strike for ties, purposes resumption, practical and foredoom its injunction if lifted.” the is later even among the Prominent was the common in abuses injunctive language of to clusion construed forbid publicizing regarded what it labor’s as the essential concerning controversy the facts of the means placards picket line of the and the dissemination leaflets therefrom.* the Constitutional difficulties of (cf., Alabama, most serious nature Thornhill 1093]) [60 S Ct L ed US the cluster around employment injunctive process a court’s derogation of our basic The denial to freedoms.. pursuit legitimate objectives, in the labor, freedom to of of
acquaint public large the at of its side controversy speech no a denial the is less of free n because may, the notification as exert eco well, an compulsion upon say nomic the listener. that .To * petition contempt We the note that for in the matter before leaflet, reading forth, a as us asserts hereinbelow set was circulated subsequent picket line to the from service court’s re- straining order: Country Do “Please Not Patronize Town & agencies (garages) “The and service sales listed below located in operate signed Eseanaba and Gladstone under bargaining collective agreements grant our union. employees with These concerns whom represent wages, working we decent hours and freely conditions under negotiated bargaining agreements. collective “We public are anxious to advertise this urge fact and to people community of this to favor our members with their business. anything “We claim wrong do not there is with the work- manship right bargain Country at & the Town employees Motors. Its have the belong union, not to employer to our duty has no majority employees join with us unless a of its our union. asking you “We are to refrain from patronizing company this provide jobs because we want to earning opportunity more employed companies our members at other under contract with our only help union. This will not also assist our union, members and our but will the cause the AEL-CIO. patronize “Please concerns who are bargaining under collective agreements you! Thank teamsters union. “Teamsters & Chauffeurs Union Local 328” No. a restraining the exercise “temporary” order
a the exist right harmless is constitutional basic right interfer because ence and exercise shabby only temporary to substitute is ence obedience With freedom. for basic formula contempt, pain injunction, “temporary” under pro right utterance of It is the lost. the basic test of quicken the oppression intended to that is tongue community. If still the we conscience at the it out. well tear we of need moment wrung out of *22 the word is heeded is that The word reproach murmurings of very the not itself, the crisis freedom of the essence lost. The the battle is after speak speech speak while freedom to the to yet is effective. uncertainty the attendant and the These abuses legis- comprehensive applied Federal led to law to be act, now relations national labor of which the lation, history legislative part. us, before it clear that act 1947 makes amendment reject in- congress scheme of continued the junctive employers though at instance of relief imposed on the activities unions. it new limitations Mill Textile Work- find in Amazon Co. Cotton We 183, 188, F2d 189: America, ers Union of report (S Rep Bill No on Senate “The senate respect 10(j) p 8) with to section that No and said ** * * provided (l): that ‘Hence we hаve acting public interest not in board, and rights, may private purely seek in vindication of types junctive practices all relief in the case of of unfair labor relief in and that shall also seek such boycotts defined as unfair of strikes case * ** (Italics supplied.) practices.’ labor rejected amendment was Ball’s “Senator’s the amendment which Taft, then introduced Senator [*] Senate Miscellaneous Reports, 80th Congress, 1st Sess.—Reporter. 1959] T. &C. v. Local Union No. authorizing damages became section suits for jurisdictional secondary on account strikes boycotts. expressed by Fear was Senator Morse [Oregon] might give granting that this rise to the injunctive (but generally) relief in these cases not K,ec replied 5074) Cong to which Senator Taft :2 “ reply say anyone ‘Let me to the Senator or argument, else who that makes same not intention of the author of the amendment. It belief is advice his as to the effect of it. It is not the counsel to the committee. Under those any I do not circumstances construe believe court would along suggested amendment the lines * ** Oregon.’ the Senator from interesting interpreta-
“It is to note that the same placed upon tion has been it Mr. Arkel, Van general former counsel of the board, who analyzed Practising the act for the Law Institute. says analysis: pp He at 63-64 of his “ legislative history, ‘The as has been indicated entirely passim, petition injunctive clear that seems rеlief on private parties a contemplated is not under possible exception, the act. There is in that sec 302(a) 186(a)], [29 § dealing tion re USCA, payments employee representatives, on strictions 302(e) grants power in section to the district courts “to restrain violations of this section” without re *23 gard to the 1\Torris-LaGuardia act sections 6 and Clayton [15 § 20 of USCA, the act USCA, 17, 29 § clearly 52]. This is limited section 302 only and hence be could exercised in the case of of health violations the and welfare and checkoff ”3 provisions of the act.’ providing It thus clear for uniform ad- policy, although ministration of the national labor recognized the of framers the amendment that im- 1947, Practising 1 USCA, Van [29] Bound volume Arkel, § An 187.—Reporter. Law reference, Analysis Institute, New of the Labor Cong Rec York.—Reporter. 4872.—Reporter. Management Relations Act, prompt would often afford more mediate court action they processes, elected, relief than administrative the and delicate nevertheless, problems to entrust difficult very going of to the heart our involved, system, and the welfare of thousands of economic NLRB. citizens, to the our then, the intent of the framers of the Such, parte injunction, respect ex act with alleged us, violation which in the case the it is of before investigated by trial must now be the
asserted, presumably, punished, violated, if chancellor [by “irrespective Supreme what action taken of the question jurisdiction Court] on the over the sub- ject cause.” matter of this n urged practical procedure matter, as a would, The pre-emption of the field Federal mean end congressional in- of clear nullification and the utter uniformity of treatment national tent there be problem. complex Na- and economic of this tional social effectively policy frustrated would be regula- diversity opinion far Federal to how as regardless moreover, tion extended. If, obeyed jurisdiction, un- are orders court’s der contempt, pain will even be, obedience there history long strike, of the at the cost the loss injunction eloquently The so attests. the labor restraining temporary in name is decisive order legislation interpret reality. before cannot "We vig'or permitting to full the restoration us as prayed The action is not ancient evils described. controlling legislation. permissible under injunctive only board, obtain board, public be the interest. are should such We relief, that the State courts are without led to conclude elementary the most sense. The being void for want of order court subject we cannot remit to such matter, over ascertaining task of whether or fruitless court the *24 1959] No. 55 T. & C. v. Local Union not certain acts of the defendants constituted a “contempt” holding The order. Great void Greyhound Union, Lines International Lakes v. contrary. UAW-CIO, 290, Mich We 341 is find for not, case, did in that the сourt’s order void Amalga jurisdiction. point lack of More to the Railway Employees mated Association Street Employment (1951), Wisconsin Relations Board 340 (71 874). L 359, 364, Ct ALR2d US ed S parte restraining There circuit the State court’s ex order a strike situation found violated and the judgment contempt,” court entered “a affirmed supreme (Wisconsin Employ the Wisconsin court Light ment Relations Co., Board v. Milwaukee Gas 547). 1Wis The NW2d United su States preme court reversed. “The national labor relations management act and the labor relations act of passed by congress pursuant powers 1947, der the to its un (p 399), clause,”
commerce held the court supreme “are the law of the land under article 6 of Having the Constitution. found that the Wisconsin public utility anti-strike law conflicts with that Fed legislation, judgments enforcing eral the Wiscon sin act cannot stand.” Where, then, as here, national pre-empts labor act relations the field and exclusive is vested in the NLRB, both authority enjoin pre-empted within the area and punish contempt injunction of the null are denied the the Federal act. remedy
Three bodies have the the basic presented: congress, the NLRB,* situation that: Labor a for announced that 1947.” Plaintifi’s forum [*] Defendants plaintiff-appellee “On Relations before the national Thursday, inform the new standards were Reporter 633). Accordingly, letter with under October court respeet 2d, labor-management the national relations bоard thereto letter dated effective disputes labor is submitted that October immediately relations relations this now conclusion, available act board (42' *25 Michigan Reports. agency of onr None acted. An
the States. might au- with have been vested State, course, of accept thority the fit to to act our State seen had Congress by under section solution tendered 10(a).* authority * accepted having having so, not Not done prescribed Congress, in the manner very that our lie ill in mouths to assert it would our jurisdiction resulting therefrom somehow lack of jurisdiction. with invests us jurisdic- summary, trial court was without In injunction NLRB has not since the of the State tion to issue the any agency completed a of with cession jurisdiction pursuant 10(a) of to section the labor- management act of 1947. relations lower and the
The decree court is vacated hill Costs to defendants. dismissed. JJ.,
Black, Edwards, Kavanagh, Voelker, J. concurred, Smith, question (concurring). at basic issue The Carr, J. equity to the has reference in suit in this and to enter a de the case to hear trial court alleged ga complaint that its hill of Plaintiff’s cree. city being Escanaba was rage in business jurisdictional standards the new understand stating “As we that: provide would not labor relations board that national mean this would Country Motors, Inc.” & forum for Town * USCA, 160[a]) provides follows : as cited section § any provided, prevent hereinafter empowered, as “The board is (listed practice any labor engaging in unfair section person from not bе af- title) affecting This shall commerce. 158 of this fected adjustment prevention that has been or by any other means Provided, law, by agreement, or otherwise: may be established any ageney any .by agreement with empowered That the board is any ageney over eases Territory to such State or cede .to communications, manufacturing, mining, industry (other any than character) predominantly loeal except transportation where and even unless the commerce, affecting disputes though involve such eases applicable to Territorial statute provision of the State or ageney inconsistent with eases such determination the the construction or has received subchapter corresponding provision of this therewith.” inconsistent 1959] &C. Local Union No. T. irreparable injury to suffer of unlaw caused because part on tbe defendants, ful conduct of tbe busi said parts embracing the ness therefor. sale automobiles and Specifically it was averred that none of plaintiff’s employees belonged de union, compel sought join, pick fendants them and that operations eting purpose were instituted for compelling plaintiff employees and to to coerce its recognition bargaining obtain agent union therefor. Defendants answer denied premises asserting their unlawful, conduct their *26 purpose that was to benefit union members generally by establishing and labor the uniform employment throughout territory conditions of the question. the Defendants further asserted that jurisdiction premises court lacked in the management under the labor relations act of 1947* jurisdiction exclusive was in the national vested labor relations board. undisputed
It that the national relations jurisdic- board does not the exercise full measure of Congress. by tion vested it the act of to Prior apparently 1950 it cases, declined to act in some on theory carrying purposes the that the of the out require legislation it do did not to- so. In 1950 jurisdiction adopted, definite standards standards were said being amended in 1954 in such manner materially enlarge as to class controversies jurisdiction rejected. in which would be It disputed in the case at bar that under the standards adopted as the board would not be thereby purpose determining exercised for the dispute parties the As matters between the hereto. pointed judge opinion, out the trial in his plaintiff remedy prevent here was without to injuries complained, to its business * 29 USCA, 141-187. §§ Michigan Reports. without jurisdiction. of the State are
if the courts situation, issue Faced with this favor. plaintiff’s decided the trial court con- to listening proofs After of the conduct that defendants were guilty cluded them, and that was en- plaintiff charged against relief. injunctive following excerpt titled to indicates the circuit from the filed opinion judge’s situation: conclusions reference to factual to were plaintiffs “The results disastrous of and shipments by their small business. Receipts union companies from freight trucking off, employing mer- cut as well deliveries of other men were chandise custom- employees. Prospective union line. picket away turned upon encountering ers to unfavorably advertised Plaintiffs’ business was Plaintiffs’ was sub- business general public. interfered with. Plaintiffs’ business stantially n dropped peri- off the corresponding about over 50% for the previous year. od the defendants this is test case. If “Apparently n prevail they compel can owners in this proceeding n join join having eligible enterprises, employees small n defendant n defendant union. Defendant employees union, require many
union covers
Defendant Alsten testified
types
enterprises.
*27
soft
bakeries, beer and
fuel,
.'it
trucking,
covered
fruits,
employees,
shop
wholesale
distributors,
(cid:127)drink
n warehouse
help
and clerical
employed.
employees
de-
employees
Particularly, by controlling trucking
of merchandise
shipment
can throttle
fendant union
all
enter-
legitimate
small
to and from practically
with the power-
union
affiliated
prises. Defendant
out-of-
Union, employing
ful
Teamsters
National
may
enterprises
small
State counsel.
owners
such an organi-
demands of
to resist
helpless
exercise of such
possibilities
zation. The
n dangerous potential power
almost without limit.”
are
&
T. C. Motors v. Local Union
No. 328.
59
1959]
opin-
was entered in accordance with the
A decree
appealed.
ion
and defendants have
filed,
that the decree of the trial
It should he noted
August
1,
Thereafter,
court was entered
supreme
1957,
under date of March
the
court of
25,
in Guss v.
United States rendered its decisions
(77
Board,
Utah Labor
353
1
Relations
S
US
Ct
Amalgamated
601) ;
1 Led2d
&
Meat Cutters
598,
America,
Butcher Workmen North
Local No.
427,
(77
AFL,
20
Meats, Inc.,
v. Fairlawn
S Ct
US
Biego Building
613);
604, Led2d
Trades
Ban
Council v.
[*] TISCA, § 160(a). *28 by appellant grant that to would are told policy. produce with Federal and conflicts confusion may right. Unforunately, how- be We believe, both expressed judgment Congress its ever,, Congress’ uniformity. Since favor area of commerce among plenary, its States respected policy judgment whatever ob- must be may jections aof no-man’s-land. there to creation be change “Congress situation at will. is free to public committee on labor and In 1954 the senate recognized of a no-man’s-land the existence welfare proposed which would have em- an amendment powered national board’s agencies act courts jurisdiction. The declination greatly reduce relations board can national reasserting ju-
the area of the no-man’s-land brought their have and, risdiction where States policy, by conformity Federal into labor laws 10(a).” ceding under section quoted, language above court, seems : right tacitly recognize the national board governed it will be to establish standards in to be submitted refusing jurisdiction sought accepting cases recognition
to it. Like
has been
any
appear
It
(cid:127)extended in other cases.
does not
n challenge
right
adopt
of the board to
fixеd
question
de-
of the character
has been
standards
noted in the dis-
termined, or,
fact,
made. As
14):
(p
senting opinion in the
cases
above cited
appeals
approved
have
the board’s
“Courts
parties
practice
to the instant cases
and none
(cid:127)question it.”
Conceivably
question
regard
any
in this
suggested
by following
procedure
resolved
supreme
court
the recent decision of
Kyne,
in Leedom v.
358 US
United States
210).
also in
interest,
Of
this
180, Led2d
S Ct
Employes
Union,
International
(cid:127)connection Office
*29
1959] T. &C. Local Union No. 328.
61
v.
11,AFL-CIO,
Local No.
National Labor
v.
Relations
(77
846)
Board, 353
S
US
Ct
Led2d
.
holding
supreme
Under the
of the United States
court in the 3
cited,
cases
above
be
first
must
regarded
existing
establishing
applicable
as
law
necessarily
in the instant
the conclusion
follows
case,
that the trial court was without
to enter
injunctive
granting
plaintiff.
the decree
relief to the
A like conclusion
of course, follow in all
must,
cases
granted by.
as to which exclusive
Congress
act of
to the national labor'relations board
notwithstanding the fact that said
eco
board,"for
or other reasons,
declines
act under
nomic.
it
standards that
established.
courts be
ing
granting
barred from
is a
relief,
result
“no-
(cid:127)
presenting
man’s-land,” thus
an
sitúa!
anomalous
long
parties
tión. So
obtains,
situation
as':'such
controversy
of the nature here
involved, which
operations
employer
the extent of the
in inter
prevents appeal
state commerce
to the national
preventive
board, have no forum in which
relief
irreparable
against
injury may
sought.
be
Such
applies
employers
limitation
ployees
alike to
and to em
representatives.
and their
As matters now
appear
stand
does
that the situation can be
changed
part Congress
other than
action on the
or of the national labor relations board. An action
damages may
permissible
proper
in tort for
under
circumstances. United Construction Workers v. La
Corp.,
(74
burnum Construction
For reason J., concurred J.,C. Kelly, Dethmers, J. Carr, v. MYERS.
WAGNER Appeal. Appeal and Error —Claim entered, than rather as of denial of deeree had Review appeal, rehearing as stated claim where motion through that, mistake or inadvertence of appellant asserted *30 attorneys, appeal purport claim of misstated appellees not controverted the assertion appeal and have 5-year appellant’s during elapsed period which since brief was filed. Stipulations of Proof. 2. —Mistake—Burden court, stiрulation, open into in entered claims that party A who fact, heavy carries burden of upon a mistake of was based care, judicial pro- every presumption of since persuasion, stability against competence, and of decretal fessional court, stipulation overthrow, and of appellate in .the thereon. decrees based orders and Stipulations—Attorney and Client. Decree — Deeds —Consent 3. against youngest daughter, by who mother decree suit Consent years, to some aside deed plaintiff set had taken care defendant, tenancy creating plaintiff and joint between a' children, to transferred other mother had been after care of defendant, money pay whereby a sum of to plaintiff was stipulation agreed open court and pursuant entered affirmed, plaintiff, judge a conference with had after trial authority is not im- of counsel to act for defendant where peached his has been ratified defendant. action Appeal and Error —Consent Decree. 4. appeal counsel on deeree substituted An attack consent late, trial such deeree was entered eourt comes too where opien trial eourt had stipulation in court and after after elderly sought plaintiff who conference with had sickroom defendant-appellant. deed to to set aside for Points Headnotes References Jur, Appeal Error 3 Am 812. § '1] '2' Jur, Stipulations 50 Am 5 Am § Jur, Attorneys at Law '91. '3] '5] § Jur, Am14 Costs 96. §