Adams v. Building Service Employees Intern. Union, Local No. 6
| Decision Date | 06 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | 27272. |
| Citation | 197 Wash. 242,84 P.2d 1021 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 6, et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by J. W. Adams, doing business under the assumed name of Richmond Nurseries, against the Building Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6, and others, for an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff in the conduct of his business and for damages. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Decree modified and as modified affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S Hall, judge.
Stevenson & Gershon, of Seattle, for appellant.
John W Whitham, of Seattle, for respondent.
Donworth Paul & Donworth, Robert W. Maxwell, and Grosscup, Morrow & Ambler, all of Seattle, and Eisenhower & Hunter, of Tacoma, amici curiae.
J. W. Adams, a licensed nurseryman who has been doing business under the name Richmond Nurseries in King county for thirty-two years raises more than ninety per cent of his stock. The nursery, in which seven persons are employed, comprises about fifteen acres of land and has a stock valued at approximately sixty thousand dollars, including real estate and equipment. Neither Adams, who does not object to his employees joining a union if they desire to do so, nor any of his seven employees is a member of any labor union.
The Building Service Employees International Union, which is an affiliate union of the American Federation of Labor, is made up of various sections (including the office building section, the hotel section, the hospital section, etc.), and claims jurisdiction of nursery workers and landscape gardeners in one section.
Jess Fletcher, J. W. Horton and Merwin Cole are, respectively, president, secretary, and business agent in charge of the gardeners' section of Building Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6. Mr. Cole called on Mr. Adams and tried to induce him to enter into an agreement to comply with the Union's requirements respecting wages and hours for nursery workers. Local No. 6, through its officers, also endeavored to persuade Mr. Adams' employees (some of whom, it was insisted, complained to the union concerning their hours of labor and wages) to become members of the Union. There was some evidence that the employees agreed to join the Union if their employer--he did not object to their joining--signed the agreement Mr. Cole urged him to make with Local No. 6.
On or about March 16, 1938, Local No. 6, having failed in its efforts to organize the employees of Mr. Adams and to persuade him to enter into an agreement with it, commenced to 'picket' Mr. Adams' nursery to compel compliance with its demands. The picketing continued until March 30th. Except Sunday, March 20th, when the pickets numbered from five to twelve, two persons, or pickets, daily patrolled near Mr. Adams' place of business. These pickets carried banners which announced that the nursery was picketed by an American Federation of Labor Union and that the nursery was unfair to organized labor. Also printed on the banners was a request to the nursery's prospective purchasers that they support the union in its campaign. A loud speaker was used by the union to inform all within its range that the names and addresses of other nurseries, who were members of the union, in that district who would sell nursery products at a reasonable price would be furnished. Photographs were taken of prospective patrons of Adams' nursery. A record was made of automobile license plate numbers for the purpose of later inducing Mr. Adams' customers, whose names were thus obtained, to refrain from trading with Mr. Adams.
On March 21, 1938, a temporary restraining order was entered enjoining Local No. 6 and its three officers named above from interfering with Mr. Adams in the conduct of his business. On May 4, 1938, a decree was entered granting to plaintiff Adams a permanent injunction and awarding damages to him in the amount of five hundred dollars against defendants, who prosecute this appeal from that decree.
Counsel for appellants contend that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the appellants since the case involved a 'labor dispute' within the meaning of Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 7612-1 et seq., the pertinent provisions of which are as follows:
'No court of the State of Washington or any judge or judges thereof shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this act; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this act.
* * *
* * *
'When used in this act, and for the purpose of this act----
'(a) A case shall be held to involve or grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same industry, trade, or occupation; or have direct or indirect interests therein; or who are employees of the same employer; or who are members of the same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees; whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or association of employees; (2) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or association of employers; or (3) between one or more employees or association of employees and one or more employees or association of employees; or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a 'labor dispute' (as hereinafter defined) of 'persons participating or interested' therein (as hereinafter defined).
'(b) A person or association shall be held to be a person participating or interested in a labot dispute if relief is sought against him or it, and if he or it is engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation in which dispute occurs, or has a direct or indirect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Lumber and Sawmill Workers v. Superior Court for Pierce County
... ... Collective bargaining on behalf of the local unions is ... negotiated by an agency of ... States conciliation service. In August, 1945, a poll of the ... of L., which is composed ... of employees engaged in lumber and logging operations, joined ... one labor union from peacefully picketing the plant of an ... Labor Council, supra, follows Adams v. Local No. 400 ... of Cooks & H. W. & ... O'Neil v. Building Service Employees, 9 Wash.2d ... 507, 115 ... Garage Employees, 6 ... Wash.2d 560, 108 P.2d 354. We held that ... ...
-
State v. McCollum
... ... is absent from this state in the active service ... of the United States. The questions ... U.S., ... 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, and Bram v ... in Washington Trust Co. v. Local & Long Distance Tel ... Co., 73 Wash ... Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks' Union, Local ... No. 148, 184 Wash. 322, 51 P.2d ... 396, 63 P.2d 397; ... Adams v. Building Service Employees International ... ...
-
Shively v. Garage Employees Local Union No. 44
...is changed in form, we are of the opinion it remains the same in substance as that presented to this court in the Safeway Stores case, the Adams case, Fornili case, and the United Union Brewery case, supra. Underlying the decisions in the cases last above referred to is a consideration by t......
-
Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. Everett Dist. Council of Lumber & Sawmill Workers, 28348.
... ... secretary and business agent, and various local unions ... and their officers. These unions ... The local ... union directly involved in the controversy is Lumber & ... supervisory employees, the plaintiff was then employing 1,277 ... Local Union No. 44, 6 Wash.2d 560, 108 P.2d 354. In ... those ... peaceful picketing. O'Neil v. Building Service ... Employees International Union ... 530, 81 P.2d 803; Adams ... v. Building Service Employees ... ...