Alabama Highway Exp., Inc. v. Local 612, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

• Decision Date: 08 January 1959
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 91
• Parties: ALABAMA HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., a corporation, v. LOCAL 612, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, an Unincorporated Association, et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 350

108 So.2d 350

268 Ala. 392

ALABAMA HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., a corporation, v. LOCAL 612, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, an Unincorporated Association, et al.

6 Div. 91.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 8, 1959.

Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Jas. A. Simpson, Robt. Mc.D. Smith, Birmingham, for appellant.

Coretti & Newsom, Birmingham, and Hawkins & Rhea, Gadsden, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, dissolving a temporary injunction theretofore in effect and dismissing the cause of the ground that the courts of this state lack jurisdiction of the subject matter. There were several complainants beside the appellant, Alabama Highway Express, but only that complainant has appealed.

Complainants' verified bill of complaint, praying for relief against threatened picketing and other conduct, alleged to be for an unlawful purpose, was presented to the lower court and on the giving of an injunction bond in the amount of $1,000, a temporary writ was issued by the Register.

The bill alleges: Complainant, Alabama Highway Express, Inc., is a motor carrier for hire and carries on both intrastate and interstate business. It operates on a so-called 'lease operator' system. Under this system, the complainant owns no trucks, trailers, or other vehicles which are devoted to its over-the-road transport business; all of the tractors used in hauling freight in complainant's motor transport business are owned by others with whom it has entered into certain lease agreements under which such owners are obligated to furnish tractors and drivers therefor to carry out such portion of complainant's business as may be assigned to them. The owners of such tractors are paid a percentage of the revenue earned from trips made with such equipment, driven by the drivers employed by the owners thereof. Each unit is driven or operated by either the owner or an employee of the owner. Complainant pays no wages or salaries to the drivers of the units leased. These drivers are paid by the owners of the equipment and are responsible directly to them. The lease agreements, which are all identical except for data which are necessarily variable between each party to the lease, solely establish the legal relationship between complainant and the equipment owners and drivers.

Joined as complainants are various owners of trucking equipment leased to Alabama Highway Express, owner-drivers, and drivers employed by such owners. Respondents are Local 612 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, with its principal office in Birmingham, Alabama; the International Brotherhood itself, with principal office at Washington, D. C.; and M. R. Sherman, the business agent of Local 612 and a member and agent of the International Union.

Respondents are alleged to have presented to complainant on a stated day union contracts and to have demanded that they be executed by complainant upon penalty of having its places of business picketed. Complainant had not previously entered into any labor agreement of any kind, and no union had been recognized as the bargaining agent for the drivers of the vehicles leased by the complainant. But, it was alleged, complainant did not object to any of the drivers being members of any union and had affirmatively made such fact known to the drivers. One-third of the drivers of its leased equipment were members of respondent labor unions. The bill avers, however, that a majority of the drivers were not members of any labor union or organization, and furthermore, that an overwhelming majority of the drivers did not desire to join Local 612 or any other labor union. It was averred that all or substantially all of the drivers had expressed the preference that complainant not enter into any agreement which would require that the drivers become members of any union. Complainant further averred that it had at no time discriminated against any union member drivers, either directly or indirectly.

In each of the two contracts presented it was provided that complainant shall recognize respondent unions or their agencies as exclusive bargaining representatives for all of the persons driving equipment leased by complainant and for owner-lessors thereof. The agreement further provided:

'(b) All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the effective date of this subsection shall remain members of the Local Union in good standing as a condition of employment. All present employees who are not members of the Local Union and all employees who are hired hereafter shall become and remain members in good standing of the local unions as a condition of employment on and after the 31st day following the effective date of this subsection, whichever is the later. This provision shall be made andbecome effective as of such time as it may be made and become effective under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, but not retroactively.'

The contract further provided:

'In all cases, hired or leased equipment shall be operated by an employee of the certificated or permitted carrier.'

Respondent Sherman, business agent for Local 612 and member and agent of the International Union, notified the complainant's president that a certain day would be the deadline for accession to the union's demands. Picketing was to begin on that morning unless the contract requested was accepted by the complainant.

Complainants allege in the bill that a contract containing such provisions is in violation of the Alabama Right to Work Law (Section 375(1) et seq. of Title 26, Code 1940) and that the picketing would therefore be for an unlawful purpose. It is further alleged that the threatened acts are imminent and that unless enjoined by the Circuit Court the complainants will sustain irreparable injury. There is no allegation of violence, threats of violence, mass picketing, or unannounced work stoppages.

Attached to the bill as an exhibit was a typical lease agreement. Also attached to the bill as exhibits were affidavits of the individual complainants joined with the Express Company relative to their lease relationship and methods of operation, etc.

Upon the ex parte presentation of the verified bill, with the supporting affidavits, several days before the stated deadline, the Circuit Court ordered the issuance of a temporary injunction. Several days thereafter respondents, appearing specially, filed a plea in abatement attacking the jurisdiction of the state court on the ground that the allegations of the bill placed the case within the field exclusively reserved to the National Labor Relations Board by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.), commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act. The plea closes with a prayer that the cause be abated and dismissed and that the temporary injunction or restraining order be dissolved.

Some time later, a decree was rendered, which recited that the cause was 'submitted for decree upon the application of the complainants for a temporary injunction upon the bill of complaint, the plea in abatement, as amended, of the respondents, the several supporting affidavits filed on behalf of the complainants and the respondents, respectively, and the stipulation of counsel that complainants are engaged in interstate commerce as defined by the Federal Labor Management Relations Act.' The decree proceeded to deny the application for a temporary injunction and to set aside the fiat previously issued. The decree further recited that the 'cause being further submitted on motion of the complainants to test the legal sufficiency of respondents' amended plea in abatement, and upon the supporting affidavits of the respective parties offered proof and disproof of said amended plea, and upon consideration thereof, the Court is of opinion that said amended plea is legally sufficient and supported by the proof and said stipulation.' It was then decreed by the court that the cause be dismissed.

There are ten separate assignments of error, but they all present one major question: Did the Circuit Court err in determining it did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter?

It is the contention of appellant that where independent contractors, and not employees, are involved, the National Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction and the state courts are therefore left free without limitation by the so-called 'preemption' doctrine. It is the further contention of appellant that even if the lease operators in this case were to be considered 'employees', the state courts would still have jurisdiction of this case since the matter of compulsory union contracts has been expressly left to the states by Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 164(b)].

The verified bill of complaint with the attached affidavits and the plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court were the only pleadings in the cause. Every reasonable intendment, not contradicted by the face of the pleadings, will be made in favor of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Hence a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction must allege facts which exclude every condition under which jurisdiction may be lawfully exercised by that court. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ballard, 202 Ala. 354, 80 So. 436.

The trial court apparently believed that the power to determine jurisdiction in a case of this sort had been laid exclusively in the National Labor Relations Board. And on oral argument counsel for appellees contended that whether the lease operators in this case were in fact 'employees' or 'independent contractors', a matter to be discussed later, was first to be determined by the N.L.R.B.--that the courts of this state may not decide this question for themselves. It would seem that this position is still urged by appellees in their...