Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. Berthiaume
| Decision Date | 03 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 1153. |
| Citation | 97 F. Supp. 451 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | ROCK HILL PRINTING & FINISHING CO. v. BERTHIAUME et al. |
Roddey & Ward, Rock Hill, S. C., for plaintiff.
Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, N. C., John Bolt Culbertson, Greenville, S. C., for defendants.
Plaintiff filed this suit praying that the defendants be enjoined and restrained from committing any of the unlawful acts set forth in the complaint, and that they be limited to peaceful picketing by a reasonable number of pickets. Within due time the defendants filed their petition for removal of the cause to this court upon the ground that the action is based upon a federal question within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Court. The case is now before me upon plaintiff's motion to remand.
The plaintiff is a textile manufacturing corporation engaged in interstate commerce. The defendants are employees of the plaintiff, and a labor union and its agents.
On April 6, 1951, a labor dispute at plaintiff's plant culminated in a strike accompanied by picketing. Plaintiff alleges that the picketing is accompanied by violations of state laws, violence, threats of violence and mass picketing designed to intimidate and coerce employees who do not desire to participate in the strike or picketing, and to coerce and intimidate such non-striking employees so as to compel them against their wishes to refrain from working in plaintiff's plant; that the foreging conduct on the part of striking union members is concerted action on their part planned and directed by their union, its officers and agents, and the plaintiff prays injunctive relief from the alleged coercive actions and intimidatory mass picketing.
It is the theory of the defendants that plaintiff's complaint boils down to an allegation that the defendants through the defendant union, and its agents, are restraining non-striking employees in their right to refrain from such concerted activity as participating in a strike, and that such constitutes an allegation of an unfair labor practice, controlled by Section 8(b) (1) of the Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (1), and that while the complaint itself does not base its right of action upon the Taft-Hartley Act, the rights of the plaintiff are exclusively controlled by such Act.
Section 7 of the Act provides, "Employees shall have the right to * * * engage in * * * concerted activities * * *, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities * * *."
Section 10(a) provides,
Section 10(b) is as follows, "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board, * * * shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint stating the charges in that respect, * * *."
Section 10(j) provides,
It is true that sections 7 and 8(b) (1) might cover the acts on the part of the defendants as alleged in the complaint, but my difficulty with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SE Overton Co. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD, ETC., 2273.
...of Employers v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Reno, Nev. and Vicinity, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 175; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. Berthiaume, D. C., 97 F.Supp. 451; International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, C. I. O. v. Sunset Line & Twine Co., D.C., 77 F.S......
-
Direct Transit Lines v. Starr
...124 F.Supp. 463; Walker v. United Mine Workers of America, D.C.W.D.Pa.1952, 105 F.Supp. 608; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. Berthiaume, D.C.W.D.S.C.1951, 97 F. Supp. 451. Such a result is in conformity with the reasoning of the United States Courts of Appeals, including this court, a......
-
Gwaltney Bros., Inc. v. Marion County Bldg. Tr. Council
...F. Supp. 185; Food Basket, Inc. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, etc., D.C.W.D.Ky. 1954, 124 F.Supp. 463; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. Berthiaume, D.C. W.D.S.C.1951, 97 F.Supp. 451; see Monmouth Canning Co. v. Local Union 340, D.C.1956, 140 F.Supp. 304; Direct Transit Lines v. Starr, 6......
-
Hat Corp. of America v. UNITED HATTERS, ETC.
...Insular Line, Inc., D.C., 109 F.Supp. 858; Dynamic Mfrs., Inc. v. Local 614, etc., D.C., 103 F.Supp. 851; Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. Berthiaume, D.C., 97 F. Supp. 451; H. N. Thayer Co. v. Binnall, D.C., 82 F.Supp. 566; Walker v. United Mine Workers of America, D.C., 105 F. Supp. ......