Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America

Decision Date05 October 1957
Docket NumberNo. 40282,No. 101,No. 795,795,101,40282
PartiesASPHALT PAVING, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Local Union; S. E. Smith, Individually and As Business Agent of Said Labor Organization; Hoisting And Portable Engineers, Local Union; Olin Miles, Individually and As Business Agent of Said Labor Organization, et al., Appellees.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. By the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.), Congress has regulated labor relations to the full extent of its legislative power under the commerce clause whereby it outlawed some aspects of labor activities and left others free for the operation of economic forces, but as to both categories, the areas that have been preempted by federal authority have been withdrawn from state power.

2. A state court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin, under its own labor statute, in the furtherance of its public policy, conduct of a labor union which has been defined as an unfair labor practice under § 8 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 158).

3. A labor union commits an unfair labor practice within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(2), (4)(A), which prohibits requiring an employer to cease doing business with another, where the labor union engages in peaceful picketing to induce or encourage a strike, or by making threats of concerted cessation of work, with the objective, although not necessarily the only one, of forcing a general contractor on a construction project to terminate a contract with a subcontractor doing work on or round that project, who employs nonunion labor.

4. When an action is commenced in a state court involving a labor controversy and the district court's jurisdiction is denied, the court must determine that question for itself. However, the district court should, in deference to the National Labor Relations Board, decline jurisdiction of an action for injunctive relief, where the plaintiff alleges unfair labor practices and the facts alleged reasonably bring the controversy within the sections of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, prohibiting those practices, and where the conduct, if not prohibited by the federal act, may be reasonably deemed to come within the protection afforded by that act.

5. A district court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin conduct of a labor union directed toward the ultimate purpose of compelling an employer engaged in interstate commerce to enter into an all-union agreement in violation of G.S.1955 Supp. 44-802, 44-809 when such conduct constitutes unfair labor practices under § 8(b) (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[b], [A]) absent a cession agreement with the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to § 10(a) (29 U.S.C.A. § 160[a]) empowering the state agency to enjoin such conduct.

6. The proviso of 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(a) empowering the National Labor Relations Board to cede jurisdiction to a state agency is the exclusive means by which states may be enabled to act concerning the matters which Congress has entrusted to the National Labor Relations Board.

7. The record examined and held: (a) The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's action; (b) there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the activities of defendants affected interstate commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 152(6) and (7), and 160(a).

Carl T. Smith, Wichita, argued the cause, and George B. Powers, John F. Eberhardt, Samuel E. Bartlett, Stuart R. Carter, Robert C. Foulston, Malcolm Miller, Robert N. Partridge, Robert M. Siefkin, Richard C. Harris and Gerald Sawatsky, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellant.

Russell Cranmer, Wichita, argued the cause, and Payne H. Ratner, Louise Mattox, Payne H. Ratner, Jr., Dale B. Stinson, Jr., Cliff W. Ratner, William L. Fry, A. Wayne Murphy, Bernard V. Borst and D. Clifford Allison, Wichita, were with him on the briefs for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 795; S. E. Smith, Individually and as Business Agent of Said Labor Organization, appellees.

John J. Manning, Kansas City, Mo., argued the cause, and Gerald Michaud, Wichita, was with him on the briefs for Hoisting and Portable Engineers, Local Union No. 101, and Olin Miles, appellees.

FATZER, Justice.

The principal question here presented is whether the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the defendant labor unions and their agents from peacefully picketing construction projects and general contractors who employed union labor, with an objective of forcing termination of their contracts with plaintiff who employed nonunion labor, the ultimate objective being to force plaintiff's recognition of one of the defendants as the bargaining agent of its employees and cause it to enter into an all-union agreement without approval of a majority of its employees to be governed thereby, in violation of G.S.1955 Supp. 44-809(4).

Both parties introduced evidence at a hearing for a temporary injunction, at the conclusion of which, upon motion of defendants, the district court dismissed the action upon two grounds: First, that it did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter since the controversy was governed by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, hereafter referred to as Taft-Hartley (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.); and second, that the National Labor Relations Board (29 U.S.C.A. § 160[a]) had exclusive jurisdiction of the controversy. Plaintiff has appealed from that ruling.

Defendant S. E. Smith was business agent for defendant Teamsters Local Union No. 795, and defendant Olin Miles was business agent for defendant Hoisting and Portable Engineers Local Union No. 101. Both defendant labor unions are affiliated with American Federation of Labor and each has a business office in Wichita.

We summarize or quote portions of the record bearing upon the question presented, as follows: Plaintiff is a Kansas corporation engaged in the business of paving parking lots and driveways with asphalt and does an annual gross business of approximately $200,000. It performs no state or municipal work. Jobs of less than $1,000 constitute seventy-five percent of its volume. Plaintiff's mixing plant and principal office are located on North Broadway in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, where it employs ten to twelve men, none of whom belong to defendant unions or any other labor union. No controversy of any character existed between plaintiff and its employees; the relationship between them was mutually harmonious. Plaintiff performed all its work in Sedgwick County and procured all materials there or in adjoining Butler County. It purchased all its equipment within the state of Kansas, although one roller and one grader of the approximate value of $21,700 were manufactured outside the state.

Plaintiff alleged unlawful acts of combination in restraint of trade, and that various employees of general contractors were induced to strike their employment, the objective being to force the general contractors to cease doing business with plaintiff; conspiracy on the part of defendants and their agents to injure and destroy its good will, trade and business, and of irreparable damage thereto; lack of adequate remedy at law; and, that the devices and activities of defendants were in violation of the provisions of Ch. 252, Laws of Kansas 1955 (G.S.1955 Supp. Ch. 44, Art. 8). No pleadings were filed by the defendants.

Evidence at the hearing for a temporary injunction established, among other things, the following: In January 1955 plaintiff was installing an asphalt parking lot for a Safeway store at Douglas and West Streets in Wichita and was forced to complete that job by using drivers who were members of defendant Teamsters Union.

Prior to July 1955 one Pearson, representing the defendant Hoisting Engineers, requested a conference with plaintiff, saying he had contacted the other trades and that they would like to sit in on the conference. At that conference, plaintiff was advised by Miles and Pearson that it would have to use union labor as long as the Union could furnish proper employees, and that it could not use nonunion labor on its small or noncommercial jobs. Plaintiff refused defendants' demand since the larger part of its annual gross dollar volume was from small noncommercial jobs and to employ union labor would make it economically infeasible to compete in the construction business.

During October 1955 plaintiff had subcontracts with general contractors and contracts with owners of construction projects to install asphalt covering on parking lots adjacent to five buildings in the process of construction, where only union labor was employed by the general contractors. One of such contracts was with Love Box Company, an industry conceded to be subject to the jurisdiction of Taft-Hartley, where Hahner & Foreman, Inc., the general contractor, was finishing a new facory building. Hahner & Foreman did a gross annual business of $1,500,000 of which approximately $400,000 in materials was purchased in the state of Kansas but originated outside the state in interstate commerce. In addition, purchases of $16,111 were made directly from interstate points. Another contract was with Bleckley, Inc., where Weller & Boucher Construction Company, the general contractor, was constructing a medical office building. Weller & Boucher did a gross annual business of approximately $1,000,000, of which $500,000 of materials were purchased locally but originated outside the state of Kansas in interstate commerce. Another contract was with Soderberg Construction Company which was constructing a Safeway store and a retaining wall at Kellogg and Lightner Streets in Wichita. The fourth contract was with the East Side State Bank, which was having its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Tran v. Standard Motor Products, Inc., 97-2188-JWL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 29, 1998
    ...statute conduct which has been made an unfair labor practice under the federal statutes"); Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 181 Kan. 775, 784, 317 P.2d 349 (1957) (NLRB had exclusive jurisdiction where defendants engaged in conduct in arguably in violation of ......
  • Binder v. Construction and General Laborers Local Union No. 685
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1957
    ...613; Friesen v. General Team & Truck Drivers Local Union No. 54, 181 Kan. ----, 317 P.2d 366; and Asphalt Paving v. International Brotherhood, etc., Local Union, 181 Kan. ----, 317 P.2d 349. The defendants contend, by merely calling the trial court's attention to interstate commerce in conn......
  • Hyde Park Dairies, Inc. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 795
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1958
    ...Board in an otherwise pre-empted case under the National Labor Relations Act. 4. Following Asphalt Paving, Inc., v. International Brotherhood, etc., Local Union, 181 Kan. 775, 317 P.2d 349 and the authorities cited therein, the state court should, in deference to the National Labor Relation......
  • Higgins v. Cardinal Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1961
    ...second Garmon decision was announced this court applied the doctrine of federal pre-emption in Asphalt Paving Inc. v. International Brotherhood, etc. Local Union, 181 Kan. 775, 317 P.2d 349, in which the provisions of section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley were We are not unmindful of the broad swee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT