OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOM. WKRS. IU v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7504.,7504. |
| Citation | 332 F.2d 64 |
| Parties | OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 5-283, Appellant v. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John R. Tadlock, Denver, Colo., of Schwoerke & Schwoerke, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
William D. Curlee, of Lytle Soule & Emery, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents the constantly recurring question whether State intervention in a peaceful labor dispute affecting commerce is precluded by the exclusionary effect of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq.
In this suit by the appellee-employer against the Oklahoma State Board of Arbitration and Conciliation, the District Court held the federal Act exclusive and preemptive, and based upon a finding of irreparable harm and inadequacy of remedy, permanently enjoined the State Board from interfering with the collective bargaining process then underway. The State Board has not appealed. The Union agent of the appellee's employees intervened in support of the State Board action, and has appealed from the final order. We affirm.
The salient facts are not disputed. The employer is an integrated public utility. Its labor relations are subject to the Labor Management Relations Act. When this suit was commenced, it had been negotiating for some time with the Union for a contract covering the wages, hours and conditions of employment for its employees. Approximately twelve full days had been devoted to bargaining between the employer and the Union. At the request of the employer, all meetings had been attended and participated in by the representatives of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. While the parties were thus engaged in peaceful collective bargaining, the Chairman of the State Board notified the parties by registered mail of a meeting of the Board, for the purpose of "investigating a so-called labor dispute between plaintiff and the intervenor, and making public its findings and recommendations for the settlement of the differences between plaintiff and intervenor, pursuant to 40 O.S. § 7."1 This suit ensued. Federal district court jurisdiction is not disputed, and it is clearly conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, as an action arising out of an Act of Congress regulating commerce. See: General Electric Co. v. Callahan, 1 Cir., 294 F.2d 60.
A number of preemption cases involving the sweep and exclusionary effect of the National Labor Relations Act and its successor have reached our highest Court since Allen-Bradley Local, etc. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740, 62 S.Ct. 820, 86 L. Ed. 1154. The law has now developed to the point where it can be said with reasonable assurance that "when it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which the State purports to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield." San Diego, etc. Union v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244, 79 S.Ct. 773, 779, 3 L.Ed.2d 775. Otherwise stated, "when an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted." Ibid, 359 U.S. p. 245, 79 S.Ct. p. 780.
"The law commands the parties to a labor dispute to bargain collectively, by meeting at `reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment'". National Labor Relations Board v. Southwestern Porcelain Steel Corp. (10 CA), 317 F.2d 527. See: Amalgamated Ass'n of St. Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 340 U.S. 383, 399, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 819 v. Byrne
...1961), petition for cert. dismissed, 369 U.S. 832, 82 S.Ct. 851, 7 L.Ed.2d 840 (1962). See also Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 332 F.2d 64 (10th Cir. 1964). In Callahan, the Massachusetts' Board of Conciliation and Arbitration had begun to investigate a labor ......
-
Grain Processing Corp. v. Culver
... ... Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 68 L.Ed.2d ... state statutory scheme met a similar fate in Oil, ... Chemical and Atomic Workers Int'l Union al 5-283 v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 332 F.2d 64 (10th Cir.1964) ... ...
-
Cab Operating Corp. v. City of New York
...by 28 U.S.C. § 1337 since the action arises under an Act of Congress regulating commerce. See Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, etc. v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 332 F.2d 64 (10 Cir. 1964); General Electric Co. v. Callahan, 294 F.2d 60, 63 ftn. 2 (1 Cir. 1961), cert. dismissed 369 U.S. 83......
-
Almacs, Inc. v. Hackett, Civ. A. No. 4323.
...directly into the bargaining process. See General Elec. Co. v. Callahan, 294 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1961); Oil, Chem. & Atomic Wkrs. v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 332 F.2d 64 (6th Cir. 1964); Delaware Coach Co. v. Public Service Comm., 265 F.Supp. 648 (D.Del. 1967). None of those cases concerns......
-
Chapter 4
...L.R.R.M. 2195 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Oklahoma: Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Local 5-283 v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 332 F.2d 64, 56 L.R.R.M. 2314 (10th Cir. 1964).[29] . Reuben, “Public Justice: Toward a State Theory of Alternate Dispute Resolution,” 85 Cal. L. Rev. 577......