Adams Dairy, Inc. v. Burke
| Decision Date | 09 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44965,44965,2 |
| Citation | 293 S.W.2d 281 |
| Parties | ADAMS DAIRY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. Patrick J. BURKE, Reed J. White, Charles Speickerman, Thomas Conroy, Walter Bush, Robert A. Stewart and Fackney L. Smith, individually and as officers and members of Milk Wagon Drivers and Inside Dairy Employees, Union Local 603, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL and as representatives of the class consisting of the members of Milk Wagon Drivers and Inside Dairy Employees, Union Local 603, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and Local 603, Milk Wagon Drivers and Inside Dairy Employees Union, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and John Doe and Richard Roe, and Maury E. Rubin, doing business as St. Louis Labor Tribune, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. Leonard Schermer, Elmer Price, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Harry H. Craig, Norman W. Armbruster, St. Louis, for respondents, Wiley, Craig, Armbruster, Schmidt & Wilburn, St. Louis, of counsel.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
This suit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, by plaintiff, a corporation engaged in processing milk and selling the milk and milk products exclusively at wholesale to retail stores in the St. Louis area, to enjoin certain acts of the defendants alleged to constitute an illegal conspiracy designed to injure and destroy its business, and for damages alleged to have been caused to its business by such acts.
The defendants, except Maury Rubin, are members, officers and agents of Local 603, Milk Wagon Drivers and Inside Dairy Employees Union affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL. The action is brought against Local 603 and the above named defendants individually and as a class. Maury Rubin is the sole owner and publisher of a weekly newspaper published in St. Louis known as the St. Louis Labor Tribune.
The parties agreed to try together the issues on both the temporary and permanent injunction, and it was stipulated that the portion of plaintiff's petition relating to damages would be reserved for later hearing. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court dismissed 'so much of plaintiff's petition as seeks equitable relief' and plaintiff has appealed. Our appellate jurisdiction is invoked on the ground that constitutional questions are involved under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Missouri Constitution of 1945, Article I, section 29, V.A.M.S.
Plaintiff's employees may be divided into three groups: (1) inside workers and clerical employees, (2) ice cream wagon drivers, and (3) milk wagon drivers. From the time plaintiff entered business in the St. Louis area and until July 1954, Local 603 was the recognized collective bargaining representative for each of the three groups, and plaintiff and Local 603 had a contractual relationship covering each group. In 1954 plaintiff and Local 603 entered into contracts for the first two groups named above, but some of the employees in group 3 formed an organization known as the 'Independent Wholesale Dairy Products Salesmens Association,' hereafter referred to as the 'independent union' which submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board, hereafter referred to as 'N.L.R.B.,' requesting certification. The N.L.R.B. conducted an election, to which Local 603 and plaintiff consented, and the independent union was selected by a majority of the employees in group 3. Immediately after the result of the election was known, Local 603 filed charges with the N.L.R.B. alleging that plaintiff had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 141 et seq., hereafter referred to as the 'federal Act,' in that it had coerced and intimidated its employees to support the independent union. These charges were subsequently dismissed by the N.L.R.B. after being 'carefully investigated and considered' for the reason that there was 'insufficient evidence of violations.' The N.L.R.B. certified the independent union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for all the employees in group 3 and plaintiff entered into a contract with that union.
The defendants pleaded, and at the hearing the officers of Local 603 testified, that the certification by the N.L.R.B. of the independent union is not being challenged, that Local 603 does not claim to represent plaintiff's employees in group 3 for any purpose, that since the certification it has not requested or demanded of anyone that Local 603 be recognized as the collective bargaining representative for said employees, and further that the defendants have not requested or demanded of plaintiff, or anyone else, that plaintiff's employees in group 3 be coerced into joining Local Union 603.
A short time after the above mentioned certification by the N.L.R.B. of the independent union, the executive board of Local 603 authorized and directed the distribution by members of the union of pamphlets worded as follows:
'Do Not Buy Adams Dairy Company Products When You Patronize
'The Dairies of Metropolitan St. Louis listed on the reverse side of this pamphlet are the finest in the world and some of them supply this store with their products. Those Dairies employ members of our Union for the delivery of their products and grant our members good wages, hours and working conditions. We are anxious to advertise this fact to the public and to urge the people of the St. Louis area to favor those Dairies with their business.
'There is nothing wrong with the products of the Adams Dairy Company. Our only reason for asking you to refrain from purchasing them is that we want to see the Dairies who employ our drivers get the business. This will not only help the Dairies of Metropolitan St. Louis who employ our drivers but will also be of assistance to the cause of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO).
'Permit us to make it clear that We Are Not Picketing This Store and Have No Dispute With It. Continue to patronize this store as you have in the past. We merely urge you to refrain from purchasing the products of Adams Dairy Company when you do business here.
'Milk Wagon Drivers, Inside Dairy Workers
Local Union 603
I.B. of T.C.W. & H. of A.'
On the back of each pamphlet was a list of all the dairies in the St. Louis area except plaintiff. These pamphlets were distributed to other unions in the St. Louis area, and Local Union 603 caused its members to distribute the pamphlets at approximately sixty different retail grocery stores in the St. Louis area by handing them to members of the general public as the public was about to enter the stores. Maury Rubin made a statement in the Labor Tribune that over one-half million copies of the pamphlets had been distributed.
Defendant Patrick J. Burke, who was referred to as the 'head man' of Local 603 and who is its Secretary-Treasurer and a member of its executive board, admitted that the purpose of distributing the pamphlets was 'to get the public not to buy Adams Dairy products;' 'to get the public to buy milk from people under contract with Local 603;' that the pamphlets were aimed to convey the message 'do not buy Adams milk;' and were intended to create an agreement among the membership of Local 603 and to urge others not to buy Adams milk. The following answers given by Mr. Burke are typical:
'Q. So the purpose of this circular [pamphlet] was to limit their sales and take that business away from them? A. To take the business over to other companies, yes, who employ and negotiate wages with us. * * *
'Q. Mr. Burke, the last sentence on this pamphlet or circular says, (reading): 'We merely urge you to refrain from purchasing the products of Adams Dairy Company when you do business here.' A. Yes.
Defendants pleaded in their return to the order to show cause, and the evidence established, that with the exception of plaintiff's milk wagon drivers, all drivers of all the dairies in the St. Louis area are members of Local 603, and that all of said drivers are governed as to wages and working conditions by an identical industry wide contract. As a justification for the distribution of the pamphlets the defendants contended that the contract between plaintiff and the independent union differs from the contract to which Local 603 is a party; that this difference tends to weaken the bargaining position of Local 603; and that plaintiff had conducted an advertising campaign to induce the public to purchase milk at the store instead of by way of home delivery, and if this campaign were successful Local 603 would 'lose much business,' large numbers of salesmen-drivers of other dairies would lose their jobs, Local 603 would lose a substantial portion of its membership and would have its representation and bargaining position seriously reduced. The defendants then alleged that it was considered to be essential that an effort be made to counteract the advertising of plaintiff to have the public buy milk at the store, and that as a means of counteracting said publicity, Local Union 603 prepared the pamphlet for distribution to the general public. However, the evidence discloses that there are two other dairies in the St. Louis area which deliver milk at wholesale solely to retail stores, using members of Local 603 to do so, and no pamphlets were circulated urging the public not to buy the milk of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Ashcroft v. Kansas City Firefighters Local No. 42, WD
...pursued at the expense of the employer, unless the object of the activity or the means used are not lawful. Adams Dairy v. Burke, 293 S.W.2d 281, 288 (Mo.1956). The right of workers "to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing" to gain these ends is......
-
State v. Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO
...Workers, Affiliated with United Mine Workers of America v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833; Adams Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, Mo., 293 S.W.2d 281, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 969, 77 S.Ct. 360, 1 L.Ed.2d 323; United Auto, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri......
-
Raineri Constr., LLC v. Taylor
...either in the end sought or the means used.” Schott v. Beussink, 950 S.W.2d 621, 628 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (quoting Adams Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 293 S.W.2d 281, 290 (Mo.1956) ). As provided above, plaintiff has properly pled extortion under the Hobbs Act. Sufficient allegations remain, outside of......
-
Curtis v. Tozer, s. 31777
...an unfair labor practice or even a labor dispute of which the Board has exclusive jurisdiction. For example, see Adams Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, Mo. 1956, 293 S.W.2d 281, cert. den. 352 U.S. 969, 77 S.Ct. 360, 1 L.Ed.2d 323, where the purpose of the Union's informational campaign and boycott wa......
-
Missouri. Practice Text
...& Assocs. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., 586 S.W.2d 310, 313 (Mo. banc 1979). 129. MO. REV. STAT. § 416.041.1(1). 130. Adams Dairy v. Burke, 293 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. 1956). Missouri 28-19 or obtain a lawful objective that is reasonably related to any legitimate interest of organized labor.” 131 The ......