Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 776 (A.F.L.)

• Decision Date: 13 February 1953
• Citation: 94 A.2d 893,373 Pa. 19
• Parties: GARNER et al. v. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776 (A.F.L.) et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 A.2d 893

373 Pa. 19

GARNER et al. v. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 776 (A.F.L.) et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 13, 1953

Rehearing Denied March 24, 1953.

Suit by employer to enjoin picketing on ground that purpose was to coerce employer to violate statute making it unlawful for employer to discriminate in regard to employees to encourage or discourage membership in labor organization. The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County at No. 1884 Equity Docket Paul G. Smith, P., entered decree enjoining and restraining the picketing, and defendants appealed. The Supreme Court No. 26, May Term, 1952, Horace Stern, C. J., held that the unfair labor practice involved has been preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act to extent of precluding injunction by state court as to such particular practice in industry affecting interstate commerce.

Decree reversed, and bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Bell J., dissented.

Douglass, Handler, Rosenberg & Ware, Sidney G. Handler, Attys. at Law, Harrisburg, for appellants.

David S. Kohn, James H. Booser, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, for appellees.

Before DREW, C. J., and STERN, STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY and MUSMANNO, JJ.

HORACE STERN, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs, Joseph Garner and A. Joseph Garner, trading as Central Storage and Transfer Company, are engaged in the trucking and storage business in Harrisburg. Their principal office there was at 11th and State Streets, but they maintained terminal and platform facilities at the rear of the Reading Railroad Freight Station at 9th and Market Streets, where they operated a local freight pick-up and delivery service for the Reading Railroad Company and its trucking division, the Reading Transportation Company, (with both of which it had contracts), as well as with some fifteen other trucking firms. Some of the freight handled by them is shipped on the Reading Railroad from points outside the State to consignees in Harrisburg. They employ 24 persons as truckers, helpers and platform men; only 4 of these are members of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 776 (A. F. L.), an unincorporated labor organization the members of which are engaged as truck drivers and helpers in the same industry in which plaintiffs are also engaged. Plaintiffs have never objected, and do not presently object, to any of their employees joining the Union.

On June 7, 1949, rotating pickets, two at a time, none of whom was an employee of plaintiffs, were placed by the Union, one in front of, and the other at the entrance to, plaintiffs' Reading loading platform; they carried signs bearing the following legend: ‘ Local 776 Teamsters Union (A. F. of L.) wants Employees of Central Storage and Transfer Co. to join them to gain union wages, hours and working conditions.’ This picketing was conducted at all times in an orderly and peaceful manner. Neither then nor at any other time has there been any controversy or labor dispute between plaintiffs and their employees, none of whom was on strike. While the picketing continued union truck drivers and helpers employed by the Reading Transportation Company and other interchange carriers refused to cross the picket line; as the bulk of plaintiffs' operations was with unionized trucking concerns the consequence was that their local business fell off 95%, causing a loss to them of between $400 and $500 per day, in addition to which they stood to have their contract with the Reading Transportation Company cancelled and their terminal facilities with the Reading Railroad Company vacated.

Plaintiffs, on June 9, 1949, brought a bill in equity against the Union to enjoin the picketing, and, on June 17, 1949, the court, after hearing testimony offered by both parties, decreed that a preliminary injunction should issue as prayed for. Subsequently additional testimony was taken on final hearing, and, on September 4, 1951, the court entered a decree nisi enjoining and restraining defendants from picketing plaintiffs' Reading pick-up and delivery terminal; exceptions filed by defendant were dismissed, and a final decree was entered on March 3, 1952 in accordance with the decree nisi. From that final decree defendants now appeal.

It is defendants' contention that the picketing carried on by them was solely for organizational purposes, that is, to persuade plaintiffs' non-union employees to join the Union. If such was indeed the fact the picketing was constitutionally protected and should not have been enjoined, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation v. United Steelworkers of America, 353 Pa. 420, 430, 431, 45 A.2d 857, 861. But if, on the other hand, the primary or paramount object was to coerce plaintiffs, the employers, to commit a violation of section 6(c) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act of June 1, 1937, P.L. 1168, 43 P.S. § 211.1 et seq. (which provides that ‘ It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer * * *. (C) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization’ ; ) such picketing would have been, by the law of the State, for an unlawful purpose and, if the State court had jurisdiction in spite of the fact that plaintiffs were largely engaged in interstate commerce, it was proper to enjoin it. Wilbank v. Chester & Delaware Counties Bartenders, Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, 360 Pa. 48, 60 A.2d 21,certiorari denied 336 U.S. 945, 69 S.Ct. 812, 93 L.Ed. 1102; Phillips v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 362 Pa. 78, 66 A.2d 227; Carpenters & Joiners Union of America, Local No. 213 v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 62 S.Ct. 807, 86 L.Ed. 1143; Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834; Hughes v. Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County, 339 U.S. 460, 70 S.Ct. 718, 94 L.Ed. 985; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Union, Local 309 v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 70 S.Ct. 773, 94 L.Ed. 995; Building Service Employees International Union, Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, 70 S.Ct. 784, 94 L.Ed. 1045.

Consideration cannot be given here to the merits of the controversy if the State courts lack jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Labor Management Relations Act-the so-called Taft-Hartley, Act-of 1947, c. 120, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., also provides, § 101, amendatory section 8(a)(3), as does our State Act, that ‘ It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer * * * by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization’ . It further provides, by an additional amendatory section 8(b)(2), that ‘ It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents * * * to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of this section * * *.’ Thus it will be seen that the Act of Congress prohibits the same activity on the part of a labor organization in this respect as does the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, the only difference being that the Federal act would stamp this picketing as an unfair labor practice, whereas the State act does not so list it but our courts have declared it to be unlawful because aimed to coerce the employer into committing what the act does declare to be an unfair labor practice on his part.

The problem presented, therefore, is whether, under such circumstances, the Labor Management Relations Act constituted an absolute and complete preemption of the field so as to preclude State action, and the test of decision is the intention of Congress in that regard, that is, whether it has manifested a willingness that the States should exercise concurrent jurisdiction in such a case. There is no express provision in the Federal legislation directly determining the question; Congress did not see fit therein expressly to declare a general policy or to state specific rules as to their effects on state regulation of various phases of labor relations over which the several states traditionally have exercised control. International Union, U. A. W. A., A F. of L., Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 252, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651. Therefore it has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that there are many phases of labor relations affecting interstate commerce in which the equity powers of the State remain intact. Thus the State is not excluded from exercising its police power, and therefore, if picketing is attended by violence and threatens personal injury or property damage to the employer or to employees desiring to work, a State agency may prohibit such picketing. Allen-Bradley Local No. 1111, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740, 62 S.Ct. 820, 86 L.Ed. 1154. Where a union, in order to bring pressure on an employer, adopted a plan whereby union meetings of employees were called at irregular times during working hours, thereby causing a constant succession of work stoppages, it was held that neither the National Labor Relations Act-the so-called Wagner Act-c. 372, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., nor the Labor Management Relations Act made any express delegation of power to the National Labor Relations Board to permit or forbid this particular union conduct from which an exclusion of state power could be implied. International Union, U. A. W. A., A. F. of L., Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651. Where an employee was discharged by an employer for refusal to pay union...