Curry v. Construction & General Laborers Union Local No. 438, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO

Decision Date04 January 1962
Docket NumberAFL-CIO,No. 21463,21463
Citation217 Ga. 512,123 S.E.2d 653
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesCURRY et al. v. CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORERS UNION LOCAL NO. 438,

Syllabus by the Court

While the picketing in the present case was peaceful, it was for an unlawful purpose, and should have been restrained and enjoined.

Perry, Walters & Langstaff, Albany, for plaintiff in error.

Poole, Pearce & Hall, John S. Patton, Wm. B. Paul, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

HEAD, Presiding Justice.

S. J. Curry and others, doing business as a partnership under the name of S. J. Curry & Company, brought a petition for injunction against Local No. 438 of the Construction and General Laborers Union--AFL CIO. The trial judge refused to grant the interlocutory injunction, and the exception is to this order.

On November 15, 1960, the petitioners entered into a contract with the City of Atlanta for the construction of certain improvements to sewage disposal facilities of the city. The contract has a limitation of 540 days from December 5, 1960, with a penalty provision for each day beyond the limit in which the work is not completed. The petitioners operate on what is known as an 'open shop' basis, that is, they employ workmen without regard to whether or not they are members of a labor organization. The petitioners were awarded only the general contract for the construction work. The city subcontracted directly with other contractors for the electrical and plumbing work connected with the project, and the petitioners have no supervision over the work of these contractors. Shortly after the petitioners started on their construction work, they were visited by representatives of various local labor unions in the Atlanta area, and a conference was arranged on February 14, 1961. The representatives of the labor unions requested that the petitioners use union workmen on the job. S. J. Curry, in his affidavit, stated that, when he told the union representatives present that the petitioners would not use union members exclusively, since they operate on an 'open shop' basis, he was told by Mr. Moore (a representative of the Building Trades Council of Atlanta) and 'other representatives of the unions' that 'they would use every means at their command to see that we did use union workmen on our project.' On August 10, 1961, a picket was placed by the defendant at the main entrance of the construction site of the petitioners, carrying a placard with the following legend: 'S. J. Curry & Company, Inc. violating contract with City of Atlanta by not paying wages conforming with those of a similar type of work in the Atlanta area. CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION 438 AFL CIO.' The picket has patrolled the construction site since that time, and because of the picket, the employees of the electrical and plumbing contractors have refused to continue their work, and carriers and suppliers have refused to deliver material and supplies. This has resulted in a partial cessation of the work, since the construction cannot proceed without electrical and plumbing work and the delivery of essential supplies. The consequence of the partial cessation of work has been the discharge of all but 37 of the 72 men working on the job at the time the picket was established.

The contract of the petitioners with the city contains the following language: 'Wages will conform with those being paid on similar types of work in the Atlanta area.' The evidence introduced for the defendant showed that the petitioners were not paying their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Local No 438 Construction General Laborers Union, Afl 8212 Cio v. Curry
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1963
    ...Board, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the denial by the trial court of a temporary injunction sought by respondents. 217 Ga. 512, 123 S.E.2d 653. We granted certiorari to consider the jurisdiction of the Georgia court to authorize the entry of an injunction and requested the parties ......
  • National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Overstreet
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1965
    ...A.L.R. 971.' See also Fleming v. H.W. Ivey Const. Co. Inc., 215 Ga. 460, 462(2), 111 S.E.2d 97; Curry v. Construction & General Laborers Union Local No. 438, AFL-CIO, 217 Ga. 512, 123 S.E.2d 653. Where, as alleged here, the sole purpose of the picketing of plaintiff's place of business was ......
  • Hattiesburg Bldg. and Trades Council v. Broome
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1963
    ...v. Teamsters, etc. Union, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228. Another case with a like result is Curry v. Construction & Laborers Union, etc., 217 Ga. 512, 123 S.E.2d 653, where the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, Local No......
  • Hudgens v. Local 315 Retail, Wholesale, and Dept. Store Union, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1974
    ...was first called upon to decide this question of jurisdiction in peaceful picketing cases it ruled in Curry v. Construction, etc., Laborers Union, 217 Ga. 512, 123 S.E.2d 653, that our state courts had jurisdiction where the peaceful picketing was for an unlawful purpose and in violation of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT