Austin v. Painters' Dist. Council No. 22, Broth. of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America (A.F. of L.)

• Decision Date: 07 June 1954
• Docket Number: No. 65,65
• Parties: AUSTIN et al. v. PAINTERS' DIST. COUNSEL NO. 22, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA (A. F. of L.) et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 550

64 N.W.2d 550

339 Mich. 462

AUSTIN et al. v. PAINTERS' DIST. COUNSEL NO. 22, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,

DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA (A. F. of L.) et al.

No. 65.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 7, 1954.

Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for appellants.

Robert A. Sullivan, Rex Eames, Detroit, for appellees. McGraw, Sullivan & Ferguson, Detroit, of counsel.

J. Albert Woll, Herbert S. Thatcher, James A. Glenn, Washington, D. C., for Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, A.F.L.

Before the Entire Bench.

SHARPE, Justice.

This chancery suit grows out of a dispute between plaintiffs and defendants over a contract entered into between the parties governing their labor relations. Plaintiffs, James Austin, et al., are representatives of themselves and certain painting and decorating contractors in Detroit and Pontiac and surrounding areas. The defendants are Painters' District Council No. 22, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, et al., Wayne Association of Painting and Decorating Contractors, Inc., et al., are intervening defendants.

The plaintiffs have had contractual relations with defendant union, and the last preceding collective bargaining agreement prior to the institution of the present suit was for the period of May 1, 1952, to April 30, 1953. The collective bargaining agreements all contained restrictions upon the use of spraying equipment as related to the type of surface to be painted, but the agreements contained no restrictions upon the use of pan or pressure roller equipment.

The conditions regulating spraying and spray equipment are as follows:

'Section 1. To avoid any future legal entanglements and so that the union shall at all times have the indisputable right to use whatever means or methods necessary to protect the health of its membership, the employer agrees that the following * * *.

'A. Spraying of white lead or red lead paints shall not be allowed at any time or place.

'B. Spraying of materials containing lacquer thinners or any other toxic thinners shall not be allowed at any time unless all necessary precautions and safeguards are used, such as proper masks or hoods, and only when suction fans are used to withdraw dangerous fumes.

'C. The union reserves the right to have all materials recommended to be applied by spray machine to be thoroughly tested by a qualified testing laboratory.

* * *

* * *

'Section 3. Surfaces not sprayable under any conditions: putty coat plaster, sand finished plaster or similar smooth surfaces, doors, sash, paneled partitions or trim of either wood, metal or composition materials. This shall not include ribbed deck ceilings.

'Section 4. In new construction on industrial manufacturing plants, commercial warehouses and commercial garages all surfaces above the dado line, with the exception of the surfaces prohibited in section 3 hereof, and with the exception of heating, ventilating, plumbing, electrical and all other mechanical installations, may be sprayed. Finish coats on dado shall be brushed, except cinder block surface dados which may be sprayed.

'Section 5. In old and/or occupied industrial plants, commercial warehouses, and commercial garages, all surfaces above and below the dado line, with the exception of the above prohibited surfaces as enumerated in Section 3 hereof, and also with the exception of newly installed heating ventilating, plumbing, electrical and all other mechanical installations, may be sprayed.

' Section 6. On all residential types of structures, both old and new, spray work shall not be permitted, except on the following items: radiators, fine grill work, open joist ceilings, cement block basements.

'Section 7. On all theatre structures, office buildings, and mercantile establishments and on all churches, schools, and hospitals, spray work shall not be allowed except on new cinder block walls, radiators, fine grill work, open joist wood ceilings, rough poured concrete open joist ceilings, porous acoustical surfaces, brick walls and rough surfaces of boiler rooms and fan rooms.'

In February, 1953, the defendant union sent notices of reopening to the various painting and decorating contractors and negotiations were thereafter conducted. The defendant union proposed a contract relating to restrictions upon the use of pan and pressure roller equipment similar to the restrictions relative to spraying equipment. The plaintiffs declined to enter into such a contract on the ground that such provisions were unlawfully in restraint of trade and were in furtherance of an unlawful labor objective. On May 1, 1953, the union called a strike of the employees of all painting and decorating contractors who had refused to sign the proposed contract.

On May 12, 1953, plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint in the Wayne county circuit court for temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the defendants on the theory that the strike was in furtherance of an unlawful labor objective and in restraint of trade. A show cause order was issued, and thereafter informal conferences were held with a circuit judge. On June 11 and June 12, 1953, plaintiffs entered into collective bargaining agreements with defendant union containing the above mentioned restrictions. The employees returned to work on June 15, 1953, but the men went on strike again on June 15 and June 16, 1953. On June 19, 1953, an agreement was entered into which reads in part as follows:

'The Court: It is hereby agreed by and between the respective parties to this action that the intent of both parties is that the resumption of work will be immediately. Second that the plaintiffs will file an amended bill of complaint which will have to do with the pan and pressure rollers solely. All other points raised in the bill and the supplemental bills filed, and the letters, from the respective parties will be withdrawn and abandoned by both parties.

'It is further agreed that both sides will proceed with this trial promptly and will appeal this court's decision and process the same diligently, and that the contract will provide the same spray regulations as contained in the 1952 contract, with the exception that the health measures contained in article 10, section A, B and C will be inserted, and the section that has to do with the size of the brush and what materials will be used will be the same as contained in the 1952 contract.'

The amended bill of complaint filed July 10, 1953, contains the following:

'That in connection with the painting and decorating services performed for the people of the State of Michigan, including state and local governmental agencies, various methods of application of paint, including pan rollers and pressure-fed rollers, could be used in addition to the more usual brush method of application.

'That the recently developed pan roller method of applying paint is substantially more efficient and rapid in applying paint to smooth surfaces than the brush method; that the pan roller method in no way endangers the health or safety to the user; that millions of housewives throughout the country have employed the pan roller method in painting the interiors of their homes; that the substantial reduction in cost which would be effected by the use of the pan roller method can be passed on to the public, including various agencies of the city of Detroit and State of Michigan.

'That the pressure-fed roller has recently been developed and perfected in the application of paint; that the pressure roller uses a pressure system to bring the paint from a tank through a hose to the applicator; that such rollers are commonly known as pressure rollers and because they eliminate the manual method of applying paint are a substantial improvement over the existing hand rollers or brush method of application; that said pressure rollers apply paint on flat surfaces in a much shorter time than it takes to paint such surfaces with a brush or a pan roller; that various contractors have used such pressure rollers and have found that by using such pressure rollers, the painting can be done much more economically and a substantial saving in cost can be effected; that such savings can be passed on to the members of the public, including various agencies of the city of Detroit and State of Michigan.

'That for a considerable number of years defendant union has unlawfully conspired to restrict and prohibit the use of the pan roller and the pressure roller in the painting and decorating industry; that none of the collective bargaining agreements up until April 30, 1953, contained any express provisions restricting the use of pan rollers or pressure rollers; that during these years, the defendant union simply instructed its members not to use such equipment.

'That the last collective bargaining agreement between plaintiffs and defendant union expired in accordance with its terms on April 30, 1953; that preceding the expiration of said agreement, collective bargaining was conducted between said parties during which bargaining plaintiffs were handed a sample copy of defendant's proposed agreement; that said proposed agreement contained express provisions that would materially and substantially restrict and limit plaintiffs' usage of pressure-fed rollers and pan rollers; that plaintiffs were informed by defendant that they must sign said agreement with said restrictions therein, or suffer the consequences; that plaintiffs refused to sign such agreements with said restrictive provisions therein, as plaintiffs believed, and so informed defendant, that such restrictive provisions were unlawful under the restraint of trade laws of the State of Michigan, and, also, an unlawful interference with plaintiffs' constitutional rights to conduct their businesses as they deemed proper; that commencing on May 1, 1953, defendant union called a strike of all employees of those painting and decorating contractors who refused to...